The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
I wish reforming religious ed got the same attention as cith.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying and agree, but the way the sacraments are offered and received is a form of religious ed–discipline teaches. If the child knows he can’t touch something with his hands but only the priest, it sends the message that it is something worthy of special care and different than a regular cracker or piece of bread.
 
Last edited:
Atrocitous said:
not according to the article that was originally posted that i quoted from. the original most perfect and only way was supposed to be by the mouth only.
Click to expand...
The article is a very conservative person’s ruminations on the matter; and they are completely incorrect that it was original - it was not; they are correct that for a number of centuries (about half of all) it (cott) was the only way as that was the disciplinary rule; and if taken literally (most perfect) would effectively say that Christ, the Apostles, and a multitude of saints over the centuries all got it wrong.

I am sure the writer did not mean it as an indictment against how Christ distributed the original Eucharist at the last supper, or at Emmaus, but rather was using hyperbole to emphasize the writer’s attitude. All too often we all can veer into making statements that do nothing more than emphasize our opinion but are incorrect factually.
 
Last edited:
Atrocitous said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well… you have to keep the following in mind:

The Church has three different kinds of “rules.”

The first two are Dogma & Doctrine. They cannot be changed. They can develop, but they cannot be reversed or totally changed.

Discipline is the third kind, and this can change, as long as the change doesn’t contradict Dogma & Doctrine.

Communion on the tongue is a discipline. All throughout Church history (and a lot in the 20th century), if a discipline was causing a large % of Catholics to sin (i.e. they are not following it during to cultural reasons, etc); the Church will change the discipline.

The point is, disciplines are supposed to help us live a devout life. If a large percentage of Catholics are ignoring a discipline, then it’s not helping a significant population to live a devout life.

However, the biggest problem is that many people don’t understand the difference between discipline and doctrine. Birth control is a great example. Many Catholics who continue to use birth control (and even some clergy) mistakenly view that ban on birth control is simply a discipline. However, when you look closely to the doctrine of the Church, it is clear that allowing birth control would contradict doctrine.

My point: disciplines (like no meat on Fridays) can be changed because they are not directly tied to doctrine and/or dogma. They indirectly support doctrine & dogma, but are not directly tied to it.

But other disciplines, like the ban on birth control is directly tied to doctrine & dogma, and therefore cannot be changed.

I pray this helps a little bit.

God bless & Godspeed.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
40.png
commenter:
I wish reforming religious ed got the same attention as cith.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying and agree, but the way the sacraments are offered and received is a form of religious ed–discipline teaches. If the child knows he can’t touch something with his hands, it sends the message that it is something worthy of special care and different than a regular cracker or piece of bread.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
But half a generation of theologians and Religious superiors, trained in daily reception of Cott for decades leading up to the late 60s, went on to promote ambiguity regarding the Real Presence in the 1970s.

So the “discipline” was an imperfect teacher for them.
 
Last edited:
People were receiving in the hand up to the tenth century.

Around 400 St. Cyril writes: “When you approach, do not extend your hands with palms upward and fingers apart, but make your left hand a throne for your right hand , since the latter is to receive the King.”

And that is the best that the conservatives can do to try to be dismissive of the matter; label it. It is a fancy way for saying that the Church obviously simply didn’t “get it” and were sadly mistaken in their methodology and (gasp) so irreverent. In short, it amounts to throwing bricks, with the brick at hand being “if you receive you obviously have little or no reverence for Christ and the Eucharist”.

And that is getting to the area of judging another’s attitude. For over 30 years I attended a parish in which the vast majority of people received in the hand. That same parish had Perpetual Adoration 24/7/363 for some 25 years or more, produced three priests, two deacons, had two others go to seminary and two women profess to orders. My experience is that it is more than just a little dangerous to presume other people’s attitude toward the Eucharist by how they receive.

Perhaps we can stop throwing bricks.
 
True–there’s no magic bullet. But the fact that the violations of the prevailing discipline and later official permission for it came during this time of ambiguity says something. I have not seen any stated rationale for the change being to dispel the ambiguity and strengthen our veneration of the sacrament in the face of it. Given the traditional rationale for COTT, changing it at that time seems purposely chosen to add to the ambiguity (and it’s ultimate permission by Rome seems mostly pragmatic, rather than having the veneration of the sacrament in mind).
 
Last edited:
We need to be honest about the ancient discipline at the time. St. Basil justified taking the Sacrament home and self-communicating without a priest present during times of persecution based on the fact that people received in the hand from the priest anyway during normal times in the Church and people self-communicated at home during normal times in other places. He wasn’t saying don’t do it.
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 offense, 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.
CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 93 (St. Basil)
Click to expand...
This of course doesn’t meaning changing our discipline back to this practice at the time was beneficial to our veneration of the sacrament.
 
Last edited:
Didn’t mean to imply you were being dishonest. There used be this list of supposed sources on communion in the hand that was passed around the tradi-sphere that misrepresented this letter of St. Basil and various other sources. It got me too at one point until one day I actually got into the actual sources. I don’t see it as much anymore, but stuff like that ends up doing more damage than good…
 
Which simply shows that bishops have had differing views on the matter. It is disciplinary, and you are certainly allowed to receive COTT. But if you want to play the “My bishop trumps your bishop” then you are not going to get very far.
 
With all due respect, it wasn’t just “a little piece of consecrated bread”, this is Jesus himself
 
With all due respect, I am making a point about how a person eats and I used wording that made that clear, especially since I also have to refer to Jesus in his human form at the Last Supper in the same paragraph. I think it’s clear what I said and also clear that I understand the Eucharist. Muting now.
 
As I said, it is the label that arch conservatives use to dismiss what they don’t like.

Or perhaps you might want to dismiss the use of the Old Testament Scripture in the Liturgy of the Word as antiquaianism?
 
otjm said:
Or perhaps you might want to dismiss the use of the Old Testament Scripture in the Liturgy of the Word as [antiquarianism]?
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence there used to be more old testament readings in the ancient Church? None of the rites which survived in the Church until Vatican II had a lot of old testament readings I believe.
 
I have seen the Eucharist dropped during it’s reception three times.
Not one of those times was the person receiving on the hand. :roll_eyes:
 
The earliest Church met on Saturday at synagogue, then met Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist.

As the Apostles went out into the diaspora and farther, they took with them what they knew - which was Jewish Scripture. When the shift occurred to reading only from the letters of the Gospel and Epistle writers occurred is likely a very difficult search, as a) we don’t have all that much in total from the first few centuries and b) liturgy as a subject matter took a good bit of time to arise.

But it most certainly was practiced from the get-go; and we have a number of homilies which reach back to Jewish Scripture in part.
 
CilladeRoma said:
I have seen the Eucharist dropped during it’s reception three times.
Not one of those times was the person receiving on the hand. :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
I’ve been a Catholic for a little over three years. I’ve seen a host dropped twice, one of the times was attributable to the priest wearing gloves during Corona, the other was a first communicant receiving in the hand. It will happen, but at least in the traditional way it won’t fall to the floor.

Remember I’m also talking about particles being irreverently handled/ dropped/ disposed of, not just the entire host.
Personally I think the Novus Ordo makes it awkward to receive on the tongue. Or rather the new way of receiving (forming a line, standing, not getting into position until the last moment, having to say “Amen” before receiving) makes it awkward to receive on the tongue.
May I ask, were any of the cases you saw with the communicant kneeling and did they use a paten? I also often think that many people receiving on the tongue have never learned how to do so (head tilted back, tongue all the way out).
 
Yet one more CITH vs COTT thread. I’m not going to get into this one, but I am very pleased that the OP posted the article from One Peter Five. I “hearted” it once and wish I could about twenty times.

My rule is "just the Host, from a priest, on the tongue, or not at all". I have refrained from communion many times, rather than receive from a eucharistic minister. I respect their sincerity and good intentions, but I disagree with this practice and refuse to participate in it.

I am going to leave it at that. There are quite enough commentators here on both sides, and I don’t think my (name removed by moderator)ut is needed beyond this.
 
otjm said:
As the Apostles went out into the diaspora and farther, they took with them what they knew - which was Jewish Scripture.
Click to expand...
This is definitely a good case of antiquarianism. Whether it qualities as “false antiquarianism” is then questionable.
Anyway, I don’t decry the addition of more old testament readings in the Mass, I decry the loss of the traditional lectionary and missal texts which had very old propers for certain feasts and saints just no longer present in the Novus Ordo.
 
Genesis315 said:
I have not seen any stated rationale for the change being to dispel the ambiguity and strengthen our veneration of the sacrament in the face of it
Click to expand...
As I noted above - I belonged to a parish where the vast majority receive CITH. It is also a parish with 24/7/363 Perpetual adoration, 3 priest vocations, 2 women professed, 2 deacons, 2 seminarians…

The short of it is is that where the Eucharist is emphasized, there is no ambiguity. And if the priest in other parishes are not emphasizing the Eucharist (as opposed to a disciplinary matter), then shame on them and shame on their bishops for not emphasizing it. Not every parish needs round the clock Adoration (though it certainly would not hurt in the least); but there is no excuse for not having some Adoration, even if less frequently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top