Why was communion on the hand instated in the first place?

[godisgood77]

For me the archeological aspect is a red herring. That they did it one way in 200AD is not a good argument for changing over to doing it that way in 1980AD. Unless Mass is some form of theatre for you. Like doing Shakespeare in plain clothes.

The real crux is symbolism. We kneel to receive on the tongue as an echo of the Centurion’s statement “Domine non sum dignus …” It’s a sign of humilty and respect. I don’t think it was a good idea to allow CITH as it sends a signal, as a corporation, that we’ve changed what we believe.

I don’t think that anyone is putting forward the idea that it was done one way in 200AD. This argument is actually a red herring. The fact is that it has never been done one way and has never been uniform and/or universal. It is unfortunate that we so often try to force our personal devotions, preferences, methods of showing humility and respect and, in general, ways of being on others… these things are not objective or universal… never have been and never will be.

 

[R_C]

In Lutheran services they use small cups

I sure hope we are not to follow the (misguided) lead of protestantism on matters of liturgy…!

Christ used one chalice, and for *centuries *the Church distributed Holy Communion placing one host at a time on the faithful’s tongue, while in the Eastern Rites the practice of intinction using a golden spoon.

We cannot go from this

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)



http://www.colsdioc.org/Portals/0/Departments/CTO/Images/byzantine%20communion%20(web).jpg

to this

 

[R_C]

Great article

Especially the conclusion:

Do we think that this practice is great in the way that it is practiced now? Not necessarily so, in light of some sense of the loss of the Sacred in our day.

…] Now of course both popes who have given this allowance have emphasized that this is to be done in a reverential fashion, and the practice of receiving on the tongue is and still must be an option for all who partake. We ourselves receive on the tongue.

…] Any abuse that happens, we likewise condemn with the Holy Father. Nevertheless, it is a traditional practice, and one is permitted to do so, according to the explicit instructions of the Holy Father. In the United States it remains the option of the Communicant, per the instructions of the Holy Father

devotions, preferences, methods of showing humility and respect and, in general, ways of being on others… these things are not objective or universal… never have been and never will be.

Is this not a form of relativism?

What the Catholic Church has consistently done through the ages is inherently universal, sacred, and transcends time and cultures.

 

[QuestingKnight]

The fact is that it has never been done one way and has never been uniform and/or universal. It is unfortunate that we so often try to force our personal devotions, preferences, methods of showing humility and respect and, in general, ways of being on others… these things are not objective or universal… never have been and never will be.

COTT is not just a personal devotion. It’s a group action, also. It sends a sign.

CITH was non-existent amongst the laity until rebels decided to revive it. Because it was a great improvement on COTT. One assumes.

I’ve never been able on these forums to find someone prepared to offer a reason for the change to CITH that benefits lay Catholics spiritually.

Just endless re-iterations of questionable history and the fact of the indult. That’s all.

‘We worship you, O mighty God, so we’re going to stand up to receive you.’

 

[ProVobis]

Great article to expose the myths

Hmmm. Was the Baltimore Catechism, the teacher of Catholicism in English-speaking countries for a century, a myth?

Q. 915. What should we be particular about when receiving Holy Communion?

A. When receiving Holy Communion we should be particular:

a.About the respectful manner in which we approach and return from the altar;
b.About our personal appearance, especially neatness and cleanliness;
c.About raising our head, opening our mouth and putting forth the tongue in the proper manner;
d.About swallowing the Sacred Host;
e.About removing it carefully with the tongue, in case it should stick to the mouth, but never with the finger under any circumstances.

jesuseucharist.com/2010/10/baltimore-catechism-on-the-holy-eucharist/

 

[Bill1940]

It doesn’t matter if it was a dispensation. It is a legitimate form of receiving the Eucharist, just as legitimate as COTT, and there should be absolutely no implication whatsoever that it is not just because it was a dispensation. It also should not be implied that is is somehow “holier” or whatever. The Bishops have spoken.

Let’s put another perspective on this: many marriages in the Church are contracted under a dispensation from the Bishop. Are they somehow less of a marriage, or less holy, or less worthy, or less Catholic, or less whatever because they were contracted under a dispensation?

Too many people on these forums (and I am not singling out anyone) are using the “dispensation” thing to somehow imply that CITH is not as worthy or reverent or whatever as COTT. That needs to stop. People should not be made to feel that somehow they are receiving Jesus in a less than proper and holy and reverent manner.

Carolyn Well said. In advance, I apologize to those who may disagree with me but I see the disposition of one’s soul more important than the position of one’s body in how one approaches the Sacrament.

 

[zz912]

Carolyn Well said. In advance, I apologize to those who may disagree with me but I see the disposition of one’s soul more important than the position of one’s body in how one approaches the Sacrament.

This implies some disconnect between the two. There simply isn’t. We are body AND soul, and our inward disposition forms our outward position.