Sociological Impact Of Communion In The Hand

[Resurrexi]

[url="http://www.latin-mass-society.org/comsoc.htm"]Changes in the Reception of Communion from a Sociological Perspective[/url]

by Paul Williams

The doctrine of transubstantiation remained intact. Yet, it no longer meant the same. Prior to the liturgical reform, this doctrine was dramatized by the repetitive stress placed on the ineffable sacredness of the Host. For in the wafer raised by the priest to the ringing of bells and the beating of breasts was the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the spotless Victim that could not be touched by unconsecrated hands. A great part of the Tridentine liturgy assumed the form of progressive obeisance to a thing untouchable. A priest could raise the Host only with his canonical digits - the thumb and first finger - which had been consecrated for the purpose. After consecrating the bread, the priest had to keep his canonicals joined as he performed the other necessary functions. The paten and chalice, for example, had to be lifted with the third and fourth fingers.

Moreover, the priest constantly had to sweep his paten for unseen specks of the sacred bread. For each part was the whole, each crumb a communion in itself. When the priest administered communion to the faithful at the altar rail he was always accompanied by an altar boy who carried a special communion catcher - another paten, the one with a long handle. The acolyte carefully placed the catcher under the chin of each receiver the prevent the catastrophe of Christ falling from someone's tongue to the floor. The thin wafers - so difficult to swallow - always stuck to the roof of the mouth. And it would be detestable - an unthinkable - sacrilege to scrape it off with one's finger.

But with the sacramental changes, Catholics were permitted to do the unspeakable. Suddenly, in many progressive parishes, the sacred Body was placed in their unholy hands. Worse yet, in some instances it was even administered by laymen who dipped their unholy fingers into the sacred chalice. Though they cringed, horrified Catholics were told that it was permissible to chew it, to receive it standing instead of kneeling, even to drink from the chalice. Was Christ as truly present in the tangible bread as He had been in the untouchable wafer? Was this the same Body of Christ that they were allowed to chew?

No, the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never officially changed. But psychologically it never meant the same. The change in practice had produced a change in perspective. The sacred no longer seemed as sacred as it once was. Even the spotless Host had been sullied by human hands.

But these changes were not meant for Catholics. They were enacted for the sake of ecumenism. They were designed to dissolve the differences between Christians "so they might be one." By dissolving these differences, the Church abrogated its sociological role and turned from its children. "We're all the same anyhow," they were told, "we're all brothers in Christ." But hadn't they been told they were different? Hadn't they been assured that they alone were members of the one true Church? Suddenly, the sheep were being protestanized before they could bleat in protest. The Latin rite was sacked and replaced by a modern, mundane liturgy that could not offend the "separated brethren." With the new Mass, confused Catholics were instructed to sing Protestant hymns and to recite the once unspeakable Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. Moreover, the priests and bishops who had once forbidden them to participate in non-Catholic services now began to take a leading role in such services. The Church, with its banners and banjoes, was standing on its head.

They had identified themselves by their religion. They were Catholics - that was what they were, who they were. Yet they could no longer identify themselves with Catholicism. For the changing Church was no longer their Church. It was no longer the Church of their fathers and forefathers. And so, many began to turn from the Church as it had turned from them. In 1965, 80 per cent of the Catholics in America attended Mass on a regular basis. Ten years later--in 1975, the number of regular attendees had dropped to less than 50 percent.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Resurrexi

[MissyP89]

...How in the world do you raise the chalice and/or paten with your [i]third and fourth[/i] fingers only? Even trying to picture it makes me nervous.

[Apotheoun]

I agree with the sentiments of the author as it concerns the liturgical "reform" of the Roman Rite, and the resulting lack of respect shown to the Eucharistic elements.

That said, I take issue with some of his phraseology in relation to the Eucharistic elements, because I do not believe it is proper to say that Christ is "in" the host (or bread), but that the host (or bread) has become Christ Himself personally present within the worshipping community. Finally, as far as chewing is concerned, in the Byzantine Churches one has to chew the body of Christ because it is consecrated from leavened bread, not unleavened bread.

[KnightofChrist]

Yes I agree, Christ is not in the host, Christ is the consecrated host.

Edited June 7, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1885192' date='Jun 6 2009, 11:12 PM']...How in the world do you raise the chalice and/or paten with your [i]third and fourth[/i] fingers only? Even trying to picture it makes me nervous. [/quote]

[img]http://tomorrowstrust.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/20-this-is-my-bloodtt.jpg[/img]

By the way, I do agree that the phraseology in the article was not as correct as it should have been.

Also, Apotheoun, you say that it in necessary to chew the Sacred Species in the Byzantine Liturgy; however, I never had a problem swallowing the Sacrament of the Altar without chewing when I received Communion at a Byzantine Liturgy.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Resurrexi

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885237' date='Jun 7 2009, 12:06 AM'][img]http://tomorrowstrust.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/20-this-is-my-bloodtt.jpg[/img]

By the way, I do agree that the phraseology in the article was not as correct as it should have been.

Also, Apotheoun, you say that it in necessary to chew the Sacred Species in the Byzantine Liturgy; however, I never had a problem swallowing the Sacrament of the Altar without chewing when I received Communion at a Byzantine Liturgy.[/quote]
Same here. And I have received on many accounts.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885237' date='Jun 6 2009, 10:06 PM']Also, Apotheoun, you say that it in necessary to chew the Sacred Species in the Byzantine Liturgy; however, I never had a problem swallowing the Sacrament of the Altar without chewing when I received Communion at a Byzantine Liturgy.[/quote]
When I became Byzantine I was told to chew the Eucharistic elements, because Christ the Lord Himself spoke about eating His body in the Gospels, and not just about swallowing His flesh. Thus, I will continue to heartily chew up the Lord's flesh every Sunday.

P.S. - Different Byzantine Churches distribute communion in different ways. In the Melkite Church I have been given communion by intinction, and the piece of consecrated bread has often been as large as a silver dollar coin (sometimes even a little larger), and so I would love to see you try and swallow that without first chewing it up. Now in the Ruthenian Church, on the other hand, the consecrated bread is normally quite a bit smaller, but it is often as hard as a rock (even though it has been soaked in the consecrated wine), this is especially the case at pre-sanctified liturgies.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1885459' date='Jun 7 2009, 05:50 AM']When I became Byzantine I was told to chew the Eucharistic elements, because Christ the Lord Himself spoke about eating His body in the Gospels, and not just about swallowing His flesh. Thus, I will continue to heartily chew up the Lord's flesh every Sunday.[/quote]

Swallowing [i]is [/i]eating.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885460' date='Jun 7 2009, 03:56 AM']Swallowing [i]is [/i]eating.[/quote]
Eating normally involves mastication.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1885463' date='Jun 7 2009, 05:58 AM']Eating normally involves mastication.[/quote]

Not always, however.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1885464' date='Jun 7 2009, 04:00 AM']Not always, however.[/quote]
Perhaps not, but chewing is always involved for me when I receive holy communion.

[Noel's angel]

Apotheoun is right. Christ didn't tell us only to swallow his flesh- he used the verb 'trogo' which means to gnaw/chew.
Funny how people used to receive in the hand, many many moons ago. Although, they would receive the Host in the right hand and bow their head down to their hand, as opposed to the way most receive today.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Noel's angel

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1885582' date='Jun 7 2009, 07:14 PM']Funny how people used to receive in the hand, many many moons ago. Although, they would receive the Host in the right hand and bow their head down to their hand, as opposed to the way most receive today.[/quote]
I've seen people receive in the hand that way, though very rarely.