Communion In The Hand

[N/A Gone]

How is this not fundamentalistic?

Does it really matter whether or not one takes it in their hand? You act like this is a big offense, but it really is not. In the realm of communion I think the fact that the majority of our brothers and sisters could not explain transubstation to a neighbor is a big problem. This is why many laity leave for the protestant churches. They see us as ritualistic, not caring about the reasoning but just the actions.

Hand-mouth
dip-sip
chewy-disolve

isnt the important part where our hearts are during this?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1166936' date='Jan 16 2007, 03:23 PM']
How is this not fundamentalistic?

Does it really matter whether or not one takes it in their hand? You act like this is a big offense, but it really is not. In the realm of communion I think the fact that the majority of our brothers and sisters could not explain transubstation to a neighbor is a big problem. This is why many laity leave for the protestant churches. They see us as ritualistic, not caring about the reasoning but just the actions.

Hand-mouth
dip-sip
chewy-disolve

isnt the important part where our hearts are during this?
[/quote]
For me it's the opposite. It is because I care so much about the reasoning that the actions take on such significance. That article I linked above expresses my view of things better than I could in a little post. If you're majorly serious about knowing where I'm coming from I might recommend a few texts:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Liturgy-Critical-View-Contemporary/dp/0898705924/sr=8-18/qid=1168976031/ref=sr_1_18/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Liturgy-Crit...TF8&s=books[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Liturgy-Joseph-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0898707846/sr=8-1/qid=1168976113/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Liturgy-Josep...TF8&s=books[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Trojan-Horse-City-God-Sanctuary/dp/0918477603/sr=1-1/qid=1168976147/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Trojan-Horse-City-Go...TF8&s=books[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Rhine-Flows-Tiber-Ralph-Wiltgen/dp/0895551861/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-6852120-8529431"]http://www.amazon.com/Rhine-Flows-Tiber-Ra...6852120-8529431[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Ottaviani-Intervention-Short-Critical-Study/dp/0895554704/sr=1-1/qid=1168976223/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Ottaviani-Interventi...TF8&s=books[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Recovery-Sacred-James-Hitchcock/dp/0898705444/sr=1-1/qid=1168976335/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/Recovery-Sacred-Jame...TF8&s=books[/url]

[N/A Gone]

hehe, easy to get that text, but not the filioque..

I know where it comes from, I would have not reconciled without looking into almost everything. I just think of the common laity who does not have the avenue to ask you where to get the info. But they know they are looked down on if they do not jump thru the hoops. That is sad.

[SRMiller]

Having only been Catholic for 2 years, I am by no means an expert. I take communion in the hand, as my priest taught me. But it has such deep significance for me in the way I hold my hands. When I got married last year, the rings were put in our hands in the same way I hold my hands for the Eucharist. To me, I'm offering all of myself to my Lord, in the same way I did at my wedding. It reminds me that my marriage is really a sign of God's love. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what goes through my mind.

I do know that not enough people take it reverently, though. I just can't understand that. If they really thought about it, how could anyone not be filled with awe?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1166999' date='Jan 16 2007, 03:50 PM']
hehe, easy to get that text, but not the filioque..

I know where it comes from, I would have not reconciled without looking into almost everything. I just think of the common laity who does not have the avenue to ask you where to get the info. But they know they are looked down on if they do not jump thru the hoops. That is sad.
[/quote]
I have never felt compelled to look down on someone for receiving on the hand. I may resent those who have pushed their creepy agenda on others though. For example the fellow mentioned here:

[quote]When traditional liturgy was declared to be “meaningless”, the engineers of change in reality often meant that it was meaningful in the wrong way — too “supernatural”, too “vertical”, too “archaic” — and they aimed to use liturgical change to bring about a change of attitude. (For example, one general secretary of the International Committee for English in the Liturgy [ICEL] admitted that the reception of communion in the hand diminished a sense of reverence and quipped with apparent satisfaction that, “The communion has become a cheap commodity, cheaper than pizza, because you have to pay for pizza.”18)[/quote]

Most people have been swept along with the revolution and aren't culpable or necessarily aware. My bag pertains more to promoting reverence and an appreciation of the sacred. The supposed argument that externals don't matter and a person at a sappy novus ordo parish can have more reverence than the latin masser misses the point because it ignores the broader questions entirely.
People who experience wonder and awe at the sappy novus ordo parish do so in spite of the profane motifs. Such a fact doesn't address the real issues at hand but is an incidental side stepping.

I really must restrain myself though because I have opinions on the matter which may be construed as radtradism.

[Mr.Cat]

[center][b]MEMORIALE DOMINI [/b] ([i]Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion[/i])
From the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
May 29, 1969[/center][quote]"Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord."[/quote][quote]"Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.'Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.'"[/quote]
[quote]"Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

[b]1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?[/b]

Yes: 597

[u][b]No: 1,233[/b][/u]

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

[b]2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?[/b]

Yes: 751

[b][u]No: 1,215[/u][/b]

Invalid votes, 70

[b]3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?[/b]

Yes: 835

[u][b]No: 1,185[/b][/u]

Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful."[/quote][b]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM[/b]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1167140' date='Jan 16 2007, 04:48 PM']
[center][b]MEMORIALE DOMINI[/b] ([i]Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion[/i])
From the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
May 29, 1969[/center]
[b]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM[/b]
[/quote]
Most people don't appreciate the way in which today's Catholic culture came to be. It is fine to ask, "what's so bad about Communion on the hand?" or "what's the big deal, you're being fundamentalist or something", etc. but I don't understand how someone can really know the history and dynamics of the so-called 'reform' and not be cut to the heart by all this stuff.

[philosophette]

[quote name='SRMiller' post='1167010' date='Jan 16 2007, 02:56 PM']
Having only been Catholic for 2 years, I am by no means an expert. I take communion in the hand, as my priest taught me. But it has such deep significance for me in the way I hold my hands. When I got married last year, the rings were put in our hands in the same way I hold my hands for the Eucharist. To me, I'm offering all of myself to my Lord, in the same way I did at my wedding. It reminds me that my marriage is really a sign of God's love. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what goes through my mind.

I do know that not enough people take it reverently, though. I just can't understand that. If they really thought about it, how could anyone not be filled with awe?
[/quote]


This is a very beautiful meditation!

I used to only receive on the tongue, but as it makes many priests around here nervous, and because I have been hit in the face so many times, I decided, that for the time being, receiving in the hand is better.

I am more a practical person. I understand the great reverence and beauty of allowing oneself be fed like a little child, but also to be given Christ, to hold him and receive him like Mary with our Amen, out fiat, is also significant. I think that people should feel free to do either, as it lends to their greater devotion. I get annoyed when we tend to splice hairs and forget the importance of interior disposition, which is what the act signifies.

Edited January 17, 2007 by philosobrat

[Moneybags]

Ever since reading this comment by Mother Teresa around the time that I was confirmed, I have decided to only receive Holy Communion on the tongue. The priests hands are the only ones that should touch the Eucharist and sacred vessels like the chalice.


From St. Thomas Aquinas:


"Out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency" (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 3).


[quote name='philosobrat' post='1167419' date='Jan 16 2007, 08:30 PM']
This is a very beautiful meditation!

I used to only receive on the tongue, but as it makes many priests around here nervous, and because I have been hit in the face so many times, I decided, that for the time being, receiving in the hand is better.
[/quote]

I disagree. Are any of us worthy to receive Him in the hands? Almost always, there is at least some crumb that will fall to the ground - that crumb is still the True Presence! I ask you to re-think this. Don't just do what you are doing for the priest. Do it for Jesus and for reverence due to His True Body and Blood.

For everyone:

Pope Paul VI

In Memoriale Domini, the Pope reconized that communion on the tongue was more conducive to faith, reverence and humility. "This method, on the tongue, must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II

He had a sign pasted in St. Peter's Basilica specifying that all priests who celebrated Mass in St. Peter's, no matter where they came from, were to give communion only on tongue.

Pope John II only gave communion on tongue during private Masses in the Vatican. Concelebrating priests were told to do the same.

He said, "I do not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this... ... here, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!" (Homily March 1 1989, SS Nome Di Maria Church)

Although there is a valid apostolic letter giving special permission for the reception of communion on hand, Pope John Paul II was "never in favour of it... ... neither did he recommend it" (Nov. 1980, Germany)

When the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d'Estaing came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the host in her mouth. (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997 pg 24) Likewise for a canon lawyer who was present at the 1981 Papal Mass in Chicago.

"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." (Dominicae Cenae, 1980, end of paragraph 11).

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcultta

"Whereever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receiving Communion in the hand" (New York, 1989)

Further it is the custom in our Society, and my known wish, that the Sisters receive Holy Communion on the tongue, which to my knowledge they are doing everywhere. (India, 1995)

Bishop Juan Laise of San Luis, Argentina

He warns that, "with Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful." (Communion in the Hand: Document and History)

Mike Warnke

A former satanist high priest who converted to Christianity, Mike warned the U.S. Bishops that Communion in the hand was a mistake, as it would allow satanist easier access in procuring the sacred Host, which is described at satanic services.

St. Basil (330 - 379 AD)

This great Saint considered Communion in the hand a "grave fault"

Council of Rouen (650 AD)

"Do not put the Eucharist in the hans of any layperson, but only in their mouths"

Council of Constantinople (695 AD)

The council prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themelves. It decreed an excommunication of one week's duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Council of Saragozza (380 AD)

It was decided to punish with excommunication, anyone who dared to receive Communion in hand.

Council of Trent

"To priests alone have been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest"

[philosophette]

So.... Benedict, I noticed that you are an extraordinary minister of holy communion on your blog..... do you ever touch the Eucharist?

You can disagree if you wish, but I still like the analogy. You can quote different people all you want, but after being socked in the nose with Jesus by several priests (which does send pieces of the Eucharist flying) I decided that it actually put the Eucharist less at risk of losing crumbs than receiving on the tongue from nervous priests. If the priests are used to giving communion on the tongue I still like to receive that way, but it really depends upon the context for me.



I also find it to be very odd to receive on the tongue from lay people, but that might just be one of my quirks.

Edited January 17, 2007 by philosobrat

[LouisvilleFan]

Why does the Church grant us the option of receiving on the hand if this act is practically on the edge of committing irreverence?

Edited January 17, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[Resurrexi]

Because Pope Paul VI, against the wishes of the College of Bishops, thought it would be beneficial...

[angelusdomini]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1167447' date='Jan 16 2007, 10:08 PM']

I also find it to be very odd to receive on the tongue from lay people, but that might just be one of my quirks.
[/quote]


I know. Me too. In fact, I only receive on the tongue. This is how I was taught. Anyway, I always feel weird receiving from an EMHC but this one time I received it from a woman and I don't know, I guess it brought too strong an incling to a woman-priest. It is the only time I recall receiving on the hand.I don't know too much about the reasoning behind EMHC especially because Priests have to have their hands consecrated (set aside) to be able to handle the Sacred host. So why are we lay people any different?

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1167426' date='Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM']
Are any of us worthy to receive Him in the hands?
[/quote]

Just to throw gasoline on the fire....are any of us worthy to receive Him period? Nope. That is the gift of grace - we receive Christ even when and even though we do not deserve Him.


carry on...

[Paddington]

I'm not in your Church. But I do respect Mother Theresa. Like almost everybody does.

But she is tripping.

The worst problem in the world today?

That is completely stupid.
That is a scandal.
That is divisive.
That is arrogant.
It is clearly not a sin to receive in the hands. I was taught to receive in the hands. That is pretty normal to be taught that.

Most baptized Catholics do not follow the Church and she thinks the worst thing in the world is to receive Communion in the hands?
People take Communion unworthily and that is better than the fact that they - most likely - took it in their hands?
I know Mother Theresa is familar with poverty and abortion and bunch of other things. But, yea, taking Communion in the hands - while being allowed to - is the worst thing in the world. Suuuuuure.

That is definitely one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.