The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We have Latinizations because the majority of our oldest liturgical books were burnt by the Crusaders who suspected us of being Messalians or Monophysites (one or the other… or both).

I see. I also heard that some early Maronite stuff that got translated into Latin was rumored to contain latinizations but it didn’t. I’ll try to look it up when I get the chance.

An unfortunate consequence of our long union with Rome is that we’ve become infatuated with the Roman approach to theology (and liturgy for that matter), particularly the scholastic approach, and have abandoned our own theologians.

Well in Early Church this was somewhat common. Church Fathers would be universal and so would approach… Rites did exist and theological approaches did too, but in the end they weren’t locally exclusive. Indeed though, Churches did not abandon their theologians in favor of foreign ones- they either kept local ones only or also adopted foreign ones alongside them. Maronites really hold special place in my heart.

 

[27lw]

The misuse of St. Cyril has been addressed early through articles by David Armstrong linked above. Armstrong’s articles have the added advantage of also quoting from St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and (I believe) St. Basil.

In my opinion, that Armstrong article seems to just skim the surface. It doesn’t really examine the writings in depth, who the writings were addressed to, in what context, etc.
It just begins to scratch the surface. The Krasniewski article is more more in depth.
Thanks though!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Well in Early Church this was somewhat common. Church Fathers would be universal and so would approach…

This is not totally true. The Greeks and Romans were much more accommodating and optimistic about the use of Greek philosophy and philosophical concepts in answering theological questions. The Syriacs, on the other hand, tended to be much more skeptical of philosophy, preferring instead to rely predominantly on the Scriptures, paradox, and biblically-inspired poetry rather than philosophy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Perhaps. But, as I mentioned earlier, Fr. Robert Taft, who devoted his entire life to the study of liturgical history, also proved definitively that Communion in the hand was the norm in the early Church. Interestingly, however, he was very adamant that just because something was done in the past doesn’t automatically justify us doing it in the present.

Again, the historical fact of Communion in the hand at one time being the norm is not the question here. The question is whether or not allowing the “exception-turned-norm” is prudent for our times. Some say “yes,” others say “no.”

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Krasniewski article

Kwasnieski is no more or less a reliable source than Armstrong. He’s not a liturgical historian. He’s a trained philosopher-turned-liturgical-enthusiast (with a strong bias toward the EF). I’ll trust Fr. Taft more, as he was trained in the discipline and methodology of liturgical history, spent his entire career studying it, and knew all the Rites of the Church inside and out better than most of us could ever hope to.

And if the level of depth of Armstrong’s article wasn’t satisfactory, he has a number of other articles on the same topic, a couple of which he takes on the arguments of Marshall and Kwasniewski. Check those out as well.

The Krasniewski article is more more in depth.

Incidentally, Kwasniewski himself admits to the fact of Communion in the hand as the norm at one time. So again, the historical fact isn’t what’s in question here. What’s being questioned is whether or not the restoration of CitH in our times (and in the way it was restored) is prudent.

But thanks anyway.

 

[godisgood77]

I would have to disagree, there are too many stories of hosts being found on the floor in the pews and in the pages of missals.

That is a possibility whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand.

I’ve watched a person spit out the host in to their hand and put it in their pocket before… one way of receiving does not invite more opportunity for abuse than another.

 

[CathBoy1]

That is a possibility whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand.

I’ve watched a person spit out the host in to their hand and put it in their pocket before… one way of receiving does not invite more opportunity for abuse than another.

You’re talking about (hopefully) a super rare instance of a profanation of the Eucharist, and comparing it to the ability of anyone who wishes to walk up and receive in the hand from an EMHC and then simply walk off and do whatever they please with the Eucharist, these two examples are worlds apart.

Earlier in this thread you said this:

On the topic of a particle falling… I think Jesus is pretty tough and can handle it.

However the famous passage from St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catecheses , used again and again to persuade Catholics that Communion in the hand is an ancient practice legitimately restored by the Church after the Second Vatican Council has this to say on the same exact topic:

”Coming up to receive, therefore, do not approach with your wrists extended or your fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right (for it is about to receive a King) and cupping your palm, so receive the Body of Christ; and answer: “Amen.” Carefully hallow your eyes by the touch of the sacred Body, and then partake, taking care to lose no part of It. Such a loss would be like a mutilation of your own body. Why, if you had been given gold-dust, would you not take the utmost care to hold it fast, not letting a grain slip through your fingers, lest you be by so much the poorer? How much more carefully, then, will you guard against losing so much as a crumb of that which is more precious than gold and precious stones!“

 

[otjm]

It’s not that simple. There are differences in CITH in the early church and CITH now.

Perhaps you could fill in details instead of just making a statement?

 

[CathBoy1]

Perhaps you could fill in details instead of just making a statement?

@27lw already has earlier in the thread:

Bishop Athanasius Schneider — who, like Fiedrowicz, is a specialist in Patrology — goes into greater detail about the ancient ritual:

[T]he practice had a different form in ancient times than it does today: the Holy Eucharist was received on the palm of the right hand and the faithful were not allowed to touch the Holy Host with their fingers, but they had to bow down their head to the palm of the hand and take the Sacrament directly with their mouth, thus, in a position of a profound bow and not standing upright. The common practice today is to receive the Eucharist standing upright, taking it with the left hand. This is something which, symbolically, the Church Fathers would find horrific — how can the Holy of Holies be taken with the left hand? Then, today the faithful take and touch the Host directly with their fingers and then put the Host in the mouth: this gesture has never been known in the entire history of the Catholic Church but was invented by Calvin — not even by Martin Luther. The Lutherans have typically received the Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue, although of course they do not have the Real Presence because they do not have a valid priesthood. The Calvinists and other Protestant free churches, who do not believe at all in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, invented a rite which is void of almost all gestures of sacredness and of exterior adoration, i.e., receiving “Communion” standing upright, and touching the bread “host” with their fingers and putting it in their mouth in the way people treat ordinary bread. …

For them, this was just a symbol, so their exterior behavior towards Communion was similar to behavior towards a symbol. During the Second Vatican Council, Catholic Modernists — especially in the Netherlands — took this Calvinist Communion rite and wrongly attributed it to the Early

 

[otjm]

But at the same token virtually all of those OF parishes are experiencing extreme decline.

The decline in attendeance at Mass Started in about 1957 and has been gradual ever since, with an occasional blip upwards. Extreme decline is simply not true.

TLM communities seminaries are bursting at the seams,

Bursting at the seams is a meanginless statement. Numbers tell the truth. And given that SSPX spreads itself across the world, it has little to do with what is going on in the US.

The diocesan/“novus ordo” side is largely drying up. The majority of the Church is indeed OF and sadly these parishes are the ones experiencing the majority of problems in the life of the Church.

The diocesan OF is not drying up - the vast majority of the 17,000 parishes in the US have the OF; the EF is not gaining any significant ground. You talk a great story, and most interestingly show noting other than over the top statements.

And I am not going to address what goes on in the SSPX - they are still irregular after how many decades…

 

[otjm]

But you can. Conference of Bishops can prohibit it, then also local Bishop can prohibit it, then also Priest can prohibit it.

Wrong. If the bishop allows it, the priest must follow his directions.

Second is that antiquarianism is heresy.

Source please.

It is an exception to the rule and not every Country, Bishop or Pastor actually allow this. It is an exception valid in some parts of the world but it would be wrong to assume it is equal to normative way of receiving.

I presumed everyone knew that; but since we are talking about the US, perhaps we could refrain from whatever is happening in Kazakhstan - that is irrelevant to the US.

 

[otjm]

What is also worth to note is that Memoriale Domini does allow Bishops to ask for indult only if that abuse is already present in their territories . This means that where it wasn’t already present by 1969 it should NOT have been allowed and shouldn’t have been encouraged from that time up until now. Now I know current practice is different but that does not mean it is justified by Vatican documents.

You are not particularly good at liturgical law. The indult was granted over time, with the US not adopting it until 1972, well after a number of other countries adopted it.

 

[CathBoy1]

I presumed everyone knew that; but since we are talking about the US, perhaps we could refrain from whatever is happening in Kazakhstan - that is irrelevant to the US.

Ok let’s talk about the USA, communion in the hand shouldn’t be allowed in the USA under the guidelines that were drawn up for allowing communion in the hand (Memoriale Domini), it should only be permitted in those areas where it was already practiced at that time 1969, and in 1969 communion in the hand was not practiced in the USA.
It is a plain simple fact that communion in the hand shouldn’t be allowed whatsoever in the USA.

with the US not adopting it until 1972, well after a number of other countries adopted it.

Under spurious circumstances at best:

So how did Communion in the hand come to America?

In 1975 and again in 1976, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) attempted in vain to garner two-thirds of the bishops to vote in favor of receiving Communion in the hand. The following year – which coincided with the end of Bernardin’s term as president – brought one final attempt. Bernadin appointed Archbishop Quinn, who became Bernardin’s immediate successor as NCCB president, to be the chief lobbyist for Communion in the hand. During the proceedings a brave bishop requested a survey of the bishops be taken – this survey would ask each bishop whether or not Communion in the hand was widely practiced in his diocese, for without the practice’s current wide-use the first condition of the indult would not be satisfied.

• Of course, everyone knew that Communion in the hand was not a previously established practice in the United States.

Though his request was seconded and supported in writing by five other bishops, Bernardin had the motion dismissed as “out of order.” The bishops then voted … only to once more fall short of the two-thirds majority. This, however, did not end the matter. Bernardin decided to (unlawfully) begin gathering “absentee votes” from any bishop he could find – including retired bishops who no longer administered any dioceses. Consequently, the number was adjusted to meet the two-thirds majority

Source:

Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing

Sacred liturgy and liturgical arts. Liturgical history and theology. The movements for the Usus Antiquior and Reform of the Reform.

www.newliturgicalmovement.org

 

[PaulinVA]

I find it interesting that the discussion of Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue does not include Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Yes, I know they are the not present in TLM.

But, in the rest of the Church in the US, which utilizes EMHCs, we already have multiple lay people touching the Eucharist. From a purely practical point of view, it would seem that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue from an EMHC is defeating the reason why one would want to receive on the tongue. I guess that’s true if you don’t believe the laity should touch the Eucharist at all.

Maybe that’s a question someone can answer - what is the objection to Communion in the hand, other than “it’s not allowed”?

 

[otjm]

Illicitly yes, it shouldn’t be allowed in the US under the guidelines that were drawn up for allowing communion in the hand (Memoriale Domini) it should only be permitted in those areas where it was already practiced at that time 1969, and in 1969 communion in the hand was not practiced in the USA.

It is not illicit, and you do not know liturgical law or Canon law.

Thus it is wrong for any bishop to try to suppress COTT even during a pandemic, bishops don’t even have that authority

On the contrary, the bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese. If the bishops of the world were wrong, Rome would have waded in.

the Pope allowed for this to be put into practice only in certain parts of the world…

And the Pope (Paul VI) and subsequent Popes have left it open to the rest of the world to decide if they also wish to have the indult. The indult was granted to those who requested it; there was no “list” limiting it to only “a few”.

How much more carefully, then, will you guard against losing so much as a crumb of that which is more precious than gold and precious stones !“

And crumbs were far far more prevalent then due to the bread used.

@27lw already has earlier in the thread:

And that poster is simply wrong. Period, end of quote wrong.

 

[CathBoy1]

It is not illicit, and you do not know liturgical law or Canon law.

True I am no canon lawyer, so let’s take a look at what a canon lawyer has to say about it:

Canon lawyer, Fr. Kunz, has stated that obtaining votes from absent bishops absolutely invalidates the petition for an indult, making the indult non-void.

On the contrary, the bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese.

And here is what a Canon lawyer recently had to say about that in reference to the pandemic:

”A bishop cannot require anyone to receive in the hand. Even in the Ordinary Form, the prescription [i.e., norm] is Communion on the tongue, with the [rescriptive] right to approach and receive in the hand. The norm is the norm, and it is based on the right of the faithful to choose how to worship God at a moment in the Mass that is deeply personal and not communal in nature. My opinion is based on the repeated jurisprudence from the Holy See upholding the rights of a Catholic to receive Communion on the tongue while kneeling during an OF Mass, even if his or her bishop has issued a particular law to the contrary. Such laws are considered suggestive in nature and in no way binding. If this is true for a bishop’s law, a fortiori it is true of a pastor of a parish. A layman may not be denied the Blessed Sacrament unless he is a notorious public sinner. A priest who, on his own initiative, told the people they must receive in the hand would be violating the law and leading the people into the violation of it.”

Continued…

 

[CathBoy1]

…Continued from above

And the Pope (Paul VI) and subsequent Popes have left it open to the rest of the world to decide if they also wish to have the indult. The indult was granted to those who requested it; there was no “list” limiting it to only “a few”.

Again, the indult was permitted under false pretenses (counting of absentee votes), furthermore the indult required that those areas which asked for the indult must have already been practicing communion in the hand, which clearly was not a practice in the United States at that time.
So yes the indult was supposed to be limited to only a few.

And crumbs were far far more prevalent then due to the bread used.

You are quoting my answer to somebody who had said that if particles of Jesus fell on the floor and are trampled that he is strong enough, he wasn’t saying that there was no crumbs he was saying that it is OK for there to be crumbs on the floor, of course Jesus is God and thus surely is strong enough to do anything he wishes…

…however it is a profanation of the Eucharistic species that shouldn’t sit well with us (Catholics).

And that poster is simply wrong. Period, end of quote wrong.

Oh OK, you’re right, he’s wrong, end of story.

There are many such articles that can be cited that agree along the same lines that Communion in the hand in the past was much different than the practice of today, many who are interested have done the research.

If you have research or articles or studies you would like to cite, that talks about the practice of communion in the hand today, and declares it is the same as it was in the past, I would be glad to read them, however just simply taking the position of “I’m right and he’s wrong” isn’t very convincing.

 

[CathBoy1]

I find it interesting that the discussion of Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue does not include Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Yes, I know they are the not present in TLM.

But, in the rest of the Church in the US, which utilizes EMHCs, we already have multiple lay people touching the Eucharist. From a purely practical point of view, it would seem that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue from an EMHC is defeating the reason why one would want to receive on the tongue. I guess that’s true if you don’t believe the laity should touch the Eucharist at all.

Maybe that’s a question someone can answer - what is the objection to Communion in the hand, other than “it’s not allowed”?

EMHC’s probably deserve their own thread, although I will say that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are only supposed to be used in extraordinary circumstances as the name suggests, what circumstances warrants 4+ EMHC’s at every Sunday Mass?
Can we not wait a few extra minutes to receive our Lord from a priest?
I really don’t have a good answer do you?

 

[puer.dei]

Why do liberal Catholics come to this traditional part of the forum
to rant and rave? Obsessed much?

Following what the Church allows is “liberal?” Then believing in the Real Presence and the sanctity of life are also “liberal.”

 

[puer.dei]

EMHC’s probably deserve their own thread,

Of which there have already been many on CAF.