The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Yes those EMHCs are pretty clumsy. That’s why we need a communion rail. Or (my pet peeve!!) why can’t churches just have one or two kneelers for those that want communion on the tongue? Why would that be so impossible?
 
Some reading for those still interested -


And like @AHelpingHand I too receive kneeling and on the tongue, but then I predominantly attend an EF Mass.

From Catholic Culture


⬆️ In part - “Arguments for Communion in the hand based upon the fact that this practice can be found among the early Christians are also not valid. Pope Pius XII spoke in very clear and unmistakable terms against the idea of re-introducing customs from the time of the catacombs.”


⬆️ Whilst the question asked doesn’t directly address this Op, I think it does mention a lot of valid points.

(Formatting won’t allow me to close the space between what I wrote and the article it’s in relation to, hence I’ve needed to insert arrows so it is clear).
 
Last edited:
OraProNobis333 said:
If true, that would mean the Church deliberately taught error, at least in those countries whose bishops conferences adopted said error.
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach error. However, churchmen and laity can fall into error. They’re not the same.
 
I’ve seen Particles of the Host b/c in college I was a sacristan and in my senior year became an EMHC (O Lord, please forgive me).

Our Lord deserves to be treated with more respect in church.
 
Another way of seeing this, instead of the Church “caving” is when we understand the the Church is not the hierarchy, but the totality of the Body of Christ. This reception of communion was not just something the laity did. If this was deemed by the hierarchy as the sense of the faithful, then what happened was not rewarding disobedience, but recognizing the working of the Holy Spirit.
 
Others have posted articles debunking Taylor Marshall’s (mis)use of St. Cyril. David Armstrong has several wonderful articles on his website (already linked in previous posts) with multiple quotes from the early Church Fathers proving that reception of Communion in the hand was the norm in those days. And, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, there are liturgical historians, one in particular, who have definitively demonstrated Communion in the hand as the norm in the early Church.

The question isn’t whether or not it was done in the early Church. That’s been answered definitively. The question is whether or not Communion in the hand is appropriate today, in our culture. Some, like David Armstrong, don’t think it is. But it appears that the authorities in the Church (authorities put in place by Christ and to whom we owe respect and obedience), think that Communion in the hand is perfectly fine when done with appropriate reverence.
 
That’s why I never saw the problem with receiving in the hand. Jesus said, Take, eat, this is my body. What he didn’t say is, Open wide!
 
Communion on the tongue is the norm. Communion in the hand is only allowed by indult.
I love it that no culture on Earth “needed” communion in the hand in, say, 1962. Just a few years later, all these people and cultures “needed” Communion in the hand so they wouldn’t be in sin?
I don’t understand this. Does it make sense to anyone?
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
all these people and cultures “needed” Communion in the hand so they wouldn’t be in sin?
Click to expand...
What’s this? I’ve never heard the argument that communion in the hand was instituted to avoid sin. Are you referring to the indult itself?
 
27lw said:
mmunion on the tongue is the norm. Communion in the hand is only allowed by indult.
Click to expand...
But it’s allowed. If it bothers you, I don’t know what to tell you. CAF has had this debate approximately one zillion times and it always ends badly; usually, from my perspective, because some (not all) COTT adherents start not-so-subtly congratulating themselves on being superior Catholics.
 
27lw said:
Communion in the hand is only allowed by indult.
Click to expand...
But it is allowed, and there is definitive historical evidence that it was the norm at one point in the Church’s history.

No one here is arguing that Communion in the hand is “needed,” and I’ve never heard or read a bishop, priest or liturgical scholar make such an argument. What’s being presented here is simply that CitH is now permitted, there is historical precedence for it, it is not in any way inferior to CotT, nor does it open the Eucharist up to abuses or sacrileges any more than CotT does (as many who have posted here have demonstrated).
 
on_the_hill said:
I have never in my life seen “particles” of hosts.
Click to expand...
Margaret_Ann said:
I’ve seen Particles of the Host b/c in college I was a sacristan and in my senior year became an EMHC (O Lord, please forgive me).
Click to expand...
Yes, They are indeed there. I have served more Masses, both OF and EF, than I can remember, using a paten (anybody remember those? :roll_eyes:), and occasionally They do fall off. If the communicant is receiving COTT, They fall onto the paten, and the priest purifies the paten after communion. If a paten is not being used, well…

Here’s a controlled experiment conducted by two laymen. Never mind that it was in an SSPX publication. Pretend that the NCReporter did the same experiment. Pretend that it was your local Discovery Center. Doesn’t matter. The results would be the same.

 
HomeschoolDad said:
Here’s a controlled experiment conducted by two laymen. Never mind that it was in an SSPX publication. Pretend that the NCReporter did the same experiment. Pretend that it was your local Discovery Center. Doesn’t matter. The results would be the same.
Click to expand...
Color me skeptical that the authors of the article, with its dramatic title and appearance in an SSPX publication, didn’t approach the experiment with a result already in mind.
 
Last edited:
RolandThompsonGunner said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Here’s a controlled experiment conducted by two laymen. Never mind that it was in an SSPX publication. Pretend that the NCReporter did the same experiment. Pretend that it was your local Discovery Center. Doesn’t matter. The results would be the same.
Click to expand...
Color me skeptical that the authors of the article, with its dramatic title and appearance in an SSPX publication, didn’t approach the experiment with a result already in mind.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps CITH advocates might wish to replicate the experiment, purchasing the very same kind of Hosts from the same supplier (Catholic Supply, St Louis MO), and using the exact same methodology. I’ve heard that Cavanagh Hosts aren’t supposed to have this problem. Do a second experiment with the same methodology, only using Cavanagh Hosts instead. See how it turns out. This is applied science, not theology.
 
Or they could, you know, just keep receiving CITH because it’s allowed and they’re answerable to their bishops and not self-appointed inquisitors on the Internet.
 
This is good. Objective and fair experiments like this is probably way more convincing for more people who receive in the hand, than us people who COTT trying to convince them it’s more reverent, more traditional, more etc. to receive COTT. Our reasonings and opinions will always carry little weight when the shepherds of their flock tell them it’s a-ok. You can’t argue with facts, unless, like the person above, you just decide to dismiss it without even looking at it. . . .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top