I do not disagree.
- Status
P
PaulinVA
Guest
But that isn’t my question. My question is what is the objection to Communion in the hand, other than its not allowed? What’s the underlying reason?
Last edited:
My personal objection to communion in the hand is that it leads to irreverence and it opens the door much wider to abuse and profanation of the Holy Eucharist.
As to irreverence:
in 1950, 87% believed in the Real Presence. Today, that number has plummeted to a mere 34%. The abusive and hurried manner in which the practice of Communion in the hand was imposed after Vatican II lead to a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist and caused great pain for many in the Church. It disoriented many people, who with real justification (especially in light of the recent and overwhelming loss of faith in the Eucharist as the real presence) feared that the very heart of Catholic belief had been compromised.
As to profanation, here is a story that Fr Heilman relates about a young man that he had spoke to:
“When I was in junior high I started hanging out and getting high with some of my older brothers’ friends. They would “play around” with ouija boards and tarot cards. They would get dropped off at “youth group” at church – go in the front door and out the back into the woods for sex, drugs, and booze. They would brand each other with pentagram rings and even sacrifice small animals. I never participated in it – cause I was the “little brother” – but they would talk about the Black Mass all the time. There was an older guy – our dealer – in his late twenties who claimed to be a wizard and showed us his pyx (I didn’t know what it was at the time) that he would use, because the priest at the Catholic Church he went to wouldn’t pay much attention, “well, they have a pyx, they must be legit!” He even said he could find hosts after most Masses on the floor or sometimes between hymnal pages, like bookmarks. I remember that, when he opened it to show us, he told us it was Jesus and that we were gonna “have a party” with him … well, I chickened out and went back to “youth” group – a couple nights later…our friend, after the “Jesus party” with the “wizard,” decapitated his sleeping aunt with a samurai sword because he “heard voices” telling him to … she was a regular Mass-attending woman; the only one left in the family. He’s locked up in a mental institution for life. When I started learning about Catholicism, I always remembered that awful time, and couldn’t – can’t – shake the feeling that my friend opened himself up to demonic possession by participating in the Black Mass that night…there were no drugs in his system when they arrested him that night.”
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Okay, those can be valid reasons.
However, I think there are many other factors at play here. There is the Priest abuse scandals, the introduction of EMHC, and other things that have led to the lack of belief.
Last edited:
All of which are separate issues, your question was what is the objection to communion in the hand.
The priest abuse scandals are terrible and should never have happened.
EMHC’s as their name suggest should be used only in extraordinary circumstances, yet that is not how they are used.
Both of these topics have been discussed throughout the forums and truly deserve their own threads if you would like further discussion.
O
otjm
Guest
The Church granted the US the indult. It is not plain simple fact; you don’t know liturgical law - which is a plain simple fact.
O
otjm
Guest
Actually, there are a multitude of issues which have led to a lack of belief, including the secularism and relativism as exhibited by our public school teachers, as well as broadcast mediums - and that is only scratching at the surface.
Under false pretenses (absentee illegal votes).
Which is why I quoted a canon lawyer.
Apparently you do not wish to cite any sources for your claims, instead you would rather dismiss those sources that I have cited as wrong and be childish and say “I’m right, you’re wrong” to anyone you have a disagreement with.
If you have any material to cite I would be glad to read it, otherwise it seems that I will have to say good day to you, I wish you well.
Peace be with you, brother.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
One or two articles, then copied by individuals who have a vested interest in repeating the issues, is not research. The Church and the liturgists within it know more than a few individuals who dabble in without any training. I trust the Church. I am sorry you don’t.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, he could have taken it up with the dicastery appropriate, and he would have lost. Not the first Canon lawyer to go down a rabbit hole.
2
27lw
Guest
Host should not be touched or “handled” by the laity, I think. I don’t like the emphasis on including the laity after Vatican II.CathBoy1:
But that isn’t my question. My question is what is the objection to Communion in the hand, other than its not allowed? What’s the underlying reason?
I don’t like the cognitive dissonance of the Church making a major flip on issues like Communion in the hand, EMHCs, etc in the 1960s. IMO it looks pointless when the church had very strong rules in place then seemingly threw them out in the 1960s.
And again the church determined that it should only be allowed in areas where it was already practiced, it was not already practiced in the USA.
I trust the Church just fine, by the way the church only allows communion in the hand, it does not recommend it.
Not a fan of what the canon lawyers had to say OK how about saints.
St John Paul II teaches that the hands of those who touch communion should be anointed and that it is a privilege of the ordained:
In his apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae , Pope St John Paul II also states: “How eloquent, therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary. To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.”
Furthermore the great Pope John Paul II said:
"There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.”
St Mother Teresa said:
“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
There are a number of problems with this article. The greatest being that it assumes its premise without proving it. It starts off saying that taking communion in the hand is obviously an abuse, but does not describe how or why, other than that it violates a centuries old tradition, which seems to indicate that this was not necessarily always the practice. It does not indicate when or how this tradition was created, or upon what scriptural basis it was done so.
When we look at the synoptic gospels, Luke states that Christ gave the disciples the Eucharist, but it does not describe or prescribe how it is to be received. So really, the Gospel of Luke appears to be silent on this matter. However, when you look at Matthew and Mark, both Gospels use the verb λαβετε, which means to receive, take, or grasp with the hand. While this of itself doesn’t necessarily provide a prescription, it does seem to lend credence to the idea that receiving Communion in the hand is not an abuse of the sacrament. If anything, taking the Eucharist in the hand appears to be more of a literal fulfillment of the text than having it placed on the tongue.
Lastly, Christ said, This is my Body. The idea that touching Christ’s body somehow profanes him seems to me to be misplaced. Christ touched the sick, the dead, the lame, the blind, the deaf. People reached out and touched his cloak and were healed. He wasn’t profaned by their hands, they were sanctified by his flesh. To me, the thinking in this article is a bit backwards.
When we look at the synoptic gospels, Luke states that Christ gave the disciples the Eucharist, but it does not describe or prescribe how it is to be received. So really, the Gospel of Luke appears to be silent on this matter. However, when you look at Matthew and Mark, both Gospels use the verb λαβετε, which means to receive, take, or grasp with the hand. While this of itself doesn’t necessarily provide a prescription, it does seem to lend credence to the idea that receiving Communion in the hand is not an abuse of the sacrament. If anything, taking the Eucharist in the hand appears to be more of a literal fulfillment of the text than having it placed on the tongue.
Lastly, Christ said, This is my Body. The idea that touching Christ’s body somehow profanes him seems to me to be misplaced. Christ touched the sick, the dead, the lame, the blind, the deaf. People reached out and touched his cloak and were healed. He wasn’t profaned by their hands, they were sanctified by his flesh. To me, the thinking in this article is a bit backwards.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Remember though that Christ instructed Mary Magdalene not to touch him after the resurrection. Though Thomas did. Certainly a conundrum.
The first objection one gets initially when approaching this subject is a mistaken notion that goes like this: But Jesus gave the Apostles Communion in the hand; therefore we are doing what Christ did at the last supper. There are two major things wrong with that statement. First of all, this is an assumption. And even if Jesus did indeed give Communion in the hand to the Apostles, we have to keep in mind that the Apostles were priests and Bishops, possessing consecrated hands.
Secondly, there is a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality that was definitely in practice in Jesus’ time, and still exist to this day, which is, the host feeds his guests with his own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. A thorough reading of the text of St. John’s Gospel states (13:26-30): “Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So, after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…” Would Jesus have placed a wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would not only be unlikely, but very messy. Wouldn’t He had expressed the gesture of hospitality to the person of Judas, whom He called friend later that evening in the garden, most especially during the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?
H
Hodos
Guest
Consecrated by what? By the shedding of his body and blood, not by virtue of being a disciple. Keep in mind, every single one of these guys would desert Jesus in just a matter of hours and have to be restored. When Christ says, do this, and the apostles wrote in their gospels, they had the chance to change the verbiage. They didn’t. They wrote the gospels not for their edification, but for your sake.
First, all three synoptic gospels describe this as separate from the Institution of the Lord’s Supper, although it happened on the same night, the two are not the same thing. Second, John doesn’t even describe the Lord’s Supper in his gospel so it is problematic to use this text while ignoring the more direct texts describing its Institution from the Synoptics. And once again, you are assuming Christ placed it on his tongue when the text offers no indication that he did.
Either way, you are saying that one practice is an abuse based on speculation rather than the actual text.
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not.
Let’s look at the text:
John 20: 26-29
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you! 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
What the text actually says is that Thomas had only seen.
O
otjm
Guest
No, more likely not a fan of a Canon lawyer who goes rogue on an issue decided several decades ago. Slight difference.
Another point quoted out of context. Really nice try, though.
Actually, the quote comes from priest who worked with her, who later retracted the statement, admitting she did not say it.
Again, really nice try.
You don’t like Communion in the hand - I think everyone in the thread gets that.
For over 20 years I have assisted in teaching RCIA, and each year as the candidates and those awaiting baptism were near to joining the Church, I taught reception of Communion. And every year I taught both methods approved by the Church to receive. I did it without any personal opinion. My comment to each and every one of them was that it was up to them to decide which way to receive, and their choice should be theirs and theirs along, and no one (which would include you) had or has a right to critique or criticize them in their choice, as that was and is part of their spirituality.
I would suggest that would be good advice for you. You have quoted and referred to comments by people who are somewhere between conservative and arch conservative. I am totally disinterested in continuing the conversation.
I am neither liberal nor conservative; I simply follow the Magisterium. As to how you receive Communion, you are within the teaching of the Magisterium also, and I have no issue whatsoever as to how you receive.
But I have a serious issue with how you respond to this conversation as you appear to come across as very judgmental. I am not saying you are judgmental, as words typed do not convey what a one on one conversation can show. I would politely suggest that you receive they way that fits with your spirituality, and back off some of the diatribe, as it clearly is not in line with the policies of the Church.
I didn’t say that the Bible 100% supports that the apostles received communion on the tongue, only that it doesn’t 100% disprove the possibility, furthermore I never once said CitH is, was and always will be an abuse, although I have noted that it opens the door to abuses and that the way in which some territories obtained the indult was indeed illicit (illegal use of absentee votes to obtain the indult).
Fr Kunz was an expert in canon law, and was never considered to have “went rogue”, perhaps you would like to do some reading on him, rest his soul:
Murder of Alfred Kunz - Wikipedia
Ok how about the words of Pope St John Paul II:
"There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.”
Is this taken out of context or not true?
Well I certainly don’t mean to come across as judgmental, although I felt the same exact way about you, not saying that you are, as you correctly point out, written words do not always convey ones tone or what one means.
Peace brother.
- Status