An Answer For Dust

[Donna]

This thread grew out of a different one.

I'd remarked that Communion in the hand had begun as an approved abuse; dUSt asked , "what do you mean by this?"

Firstly, I want to point out we were speaking in the context of the concilliar years (since Vatican II). So when I said Communion in the hand "began as", I should more properly say "re-introduced", because the practice was in existence long centuries ago.

All of the following is a quote from Michael Davies' well documented "Pope Paul's New Mass" in a chapter entitled 'Communion in the Hand':

An Abuse Fostered by Disobedience and Deceit

Communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Catholic Church as an act of rebellion soon after Vatican II. It began in Holland as an arbitrary act of defiance of legitimate authority. Mandatory liturgical norms were defied and Communion was distributed in some Catholic churches in what had been, since the Reformation, the characteristically Protestant manner. It was an abuse and should have been dealt with by the bishops immediately and effectively. Priests who refused to conform to the law of the Church should have been suspended. Such action was not taken, and the practice spread to Germany, Belgium, and France. In these countries the bishops also betrayed their office and allowed the abuse to go unchecked. Thus a practice which had already been made unacceptable to Catholics because of its adoption by Protestants to symbolize their rejection of Catholic Eucharistic teaching, was made doubly unacceptable when it became a symbol of the rejection of ecclesiastical authority by Liberal clerics.

The consequences of this rebellion became so serious that the Pope consulted the bishops of the world, and, after obtaining their opinions, promulgated the Instruction Memoriale Domini in 1969. The principal points contained are:

(1) The bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against the innovation.

(2) The traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion must be retained [ that is, distributed by a priest, upon the tongue of the communicant - Donna].

(3) It is a sign of reverence which does not detract from the dignity of the communicant.

(4) The innovation could lead to irreverence, profanation, and the adulteration of correct doctrine.

Therefore:

The Apostolic See strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.

However, a calamitous error of judgement then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice "has already developed in any place" a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase "has already developed" meant by that date, 28 May, 1969. Countries where the practice had not developed by that date were obviously excluded from the concession - and all the English-speaking countries come into this category. Liberal priests in certain countries had found that if they broke the law then the Holy See would amend the law to conform with their disobedience. Liberals in other countries presumed that, if they followed suit, the Vatican would continue to surrender. Their judgement was correct, and not simply as regards Communion in the hand...

*From Pope Paul's New Mass, Michael Davies, Angelus Press, 1980, pages 464-466.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

When I received my First Holy Communion in the mid-seventies (sheesh, I'm old), we were given the "choice" to receive on the tongue or in the hand. But we were REALLY encouraged to receive it in the hand.

I've wondered about this for a few years now, and had come to the conclusion that on the tongue was more proper, if you will.

I will never take the Eucharist in the hand again.

[IcePrincessKRS]

When I received my First Holy Communion in the mid-seventies (sheesh, I'm old), we were given the "choice" to receive on the tongue or in the hand.  But we were REALLY encouraged to receive it in the hand. 

I've wondered about this for a few years now, and had come to the conclusion that on the tongue was more proper, if you will.

I will never take the Eucharist in the hand again.

When I made my First Holy Communion we were told it was ok to receive in the hand but strongly encourage to receive on the tongue. It has always been my preferance to receive on the tongue.

[hyperdulia again]

I feel silly taking it on the tongue w/out being able to kneel, but I feel bad recieving in my grubby hands (I'm not saying anyone else should).

[jasJis]

We are also told to obey the authority of the Bishops. One of the points of communal worship is for us to praise together, and behave in the same way. The GIRM and Catechism also points this out.

I don't have a problem with recieving in the hand because:

1.) That is how Jesus did it with the Apostles.

2.) That was the tradition long ago, before it was placed on the tongue.

3.) It is the 'norm' in the US as provided by an authorized indult from the Holy See.

4.) It is a sign of my personal obedience to my Bishop and the Church.

I do bow as a sign of reverence before recieving as the latest GIRM requests all the faithful to do.

I'm older than you, Kilroy. I was an altarboy in the late 60's and held the patten under the communicants chin during communion. God knows how grubby our tongue and hands are. He knows how grubby our souls are. I don't think a little filth on our hands is as offensive to God as the irritatation in our heart toward our neighbor who doesn't seem to be reverent enough.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

True enough. And I'm pretty guilty of that irritation myself. I work on it at every mass...

[Jonle]

This thread grew out of a different one.

I'd remarked that Communion in the hand had begun as an approved abuse; dUSt asked , "what do you mean by this?"

Firstly, I want to point out we were speaking in the context of the concilliar years (since Vatican II). So when I said Communion in the hand "began as", I should more properly say "re-introduced", because the practice was in existence long centuries ago.

All of the following is a quote from Michael Davies' well documented "Pope Paul's New Mass" in a chapter entitled 'Communion in the Hand':

An Abuse Fostered by Disobedience and Deceit

Communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Catholic Church as an act of rebellion soon after Vatican II. It began in Holland as an arbitrary act of defiance of legitimate authority. Mandatory liturgical norms were defied and Communion was distributed in some Catholic churches in what had been, since the Reformation, the characteristically Protestant manner. It was an abuse and should have been dealt with by the bishops immediately and effectively. Priests who refused to conform to the law of the Church should have been suspended. Such action was not taken, and the practice spread to Germany, Belgium, and France. In these countries the bishops also betrayed their office and allowed the abuse to go unchecked. Thus a practice which had already been made unacceptable to Catholics because of its adoption by Protestants to symbolize their rejection of Catholic Eucharistic teaching, was made doubly unacceptable when it became a symbol of the rejection of ecclesiastical authority by Liberal clerics.

The consequences of this rebellion became so serious that the Pope consulted the bishops of the world, and, after obtaining their opinions, promulgated the Instruction Memoriale Domini in 1969. The principal points contained are:

(1) The bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against the innovation.

(2) The traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion must be retained [ that is, distributed by a priest, upon the tongue of the communicant - Donna].

(3) It is a sign of reverence which does not detract from the dignity of the communicant.

(4) The innovation could lead to irreverence, profanation, and the adulteration of correct doctrine.

Therefore:

The Apostolic See strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church. 

However, a calamitous error of judgement then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice "has already developed in any place" a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase "has already developed" meant by that date, 28 May, 1969. Countries where the practice had not developed by that date were obviously excluded from the concession - and all the English-speaking countries come into this category. Liberal priests in certain countries had found that if they broke the law then the Holy See would amend the law to conform with their disobedience. Liberals in other countries presumed that, if they followed suit, the Vatican would continue to surrender. Their judgement was correct, and not simply as regards Communion in the hand...

*From Pope Paul's New Mass, Michael Davies, Angelus Press, 1980, pages 464-466.

Firstly, If all of that is true, then why is recieving in the hand the "norm" now? Secondly, why does it matter how people recieve?

[dUSt]

Donna,

Do you believe that it is wrong for a person who prefers to recieve holy communion in the hands to do so?

[electricdisk]

Since what the Church binds on earth, it is bound in heaven, it is not wrong. However, I have read some things (private revelation i.e. not binding, just like believing in the apparitions at fatima, lourdes are not binding) which have made me decide to NEVER take communion in the hand ever again. I don't. My wife doesn't either.

[jasJis]

Jonle,

It is the Norm now because the US Bishop Council asked for, and recieved, permission to do so by the 'Vatican'. In this particualar case it's called an 'indult'. Some of the reasons why an indult would be granted would be appreciation of cultural elements. For instance, a kiss on the cheek might be rude in Zimbabwe, and a touching foreheads as a sign of affection and reverence.

It matters so much to Catholics because we believe it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus who is God in the form (accidence) of Bread. It is the Flesh of God made physical into food for us. Reverence for God is expected.

[vianney]

Ha Ha Ha...Sorry but I get like this when ppl argue about such stupid things. With every argument like this I ask myself one question. Would Jesus care? Would he? Plain and simple would Jesus freak out if we took eucharist in our hand but in our hearts fully knew the importance of it and kept a reverant spirit about it. One thing I hate in our chuch is that so many ppl do things out of looking pius and not out of our hearts. I would say that if you prefer to take communion in the hand, do so...If you prefer to take it by mouth, do so. But dont you dare judge other people or their respect for the eucharist by which one they choose.

[dUSt]

Ha Ha Ha...Sorry but I get like this when ppl argue about such stupid things. With every argument like this I ask myself one question. Would Jesus care? Would he? Plain and simple would Jesus freak out if we took eucharist in our hand but in our hearts fully knew the importance of it and kept a reverant spirit about it. One thing I hate in our chuch is that so many ppl do things out of looking pius and not out of our hearts. I would say that if you prefer to take communion in the hand, do so...If you prefer to take it by mouth, do so. But dont you dare judge other people or their respect for the eucharist by which one they choose.

Peace be with you vianney.

I respect your concern about judging others, but I think that your lack of concern over how we recieve the Eucharist is not well thought out. These are serious issues. Would it be acceptable to flip the Eucharist in the air before we receive it? What about dipping it in some chocolate milk? Of course, it's a silly hypothesis, but the point is to clarify the question on what is/isn't respectable. Isn't it the Church's responsibility to guide that? When you ask the question, "Would Jesus care", we can only answer it by asking his Church.

You tell people not to judge, yet you judge those people who "do things out of looking pius and not out of our hearts". What makes you think that it is not out of their hearts?

God bless.

[electricdisk]

"Because 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." - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica

I guess ST Thomas was just not 'with the times' because he wrote this so long ago. Get with the times St Thomas!!!!!! Let us do as we wish in this matter!! Why can't I just take it in my hands, put it in my pocket and take it home?? Then I could skip Mass all together and not be bothered with incidentals.

[dUSt]

Thanks for that Aquinas quote electric. Very cool.

[vianney]

Look I take the Eucharist in my mouth. But some of the holiest ppl I know take it by hand. Your right dust let the church decide if Jesus would really care...The church has decided and they said both forms are acceptable according to the GIRM...Ive had older people come up to some of my friends and tell them that they are inappropriate becuz they take the eucharist in their hands. That is just stupid. Worry about your own reverance towards the eucharist when it comes to matters like this. Taking the eucharist in the hand and comparing that to dipping it in choclate milk are two completely different things. Im not saying those who take eucharist by mouth are trying to look pius. I take it by mouth and bow before every time i receive for my personal reasons and i leave it at that. I dont tell other ppl what is ok and not ok to do when it comes to things that even Rome says are ok to do. No disrespect meant dust we might just disagree on this one.

[dUSt]

Look I take the Eucharist in my mouth. But some of the holiest ppl I know take it by hand. Your right dust let the church decide if Jesus would really care...The church has decided and they said both forms are acceptable according to the GIRM...Ive had older people come up to some of my friends and tell them that they are inappropriate becuz they take the eucharist in their hands. That is just stupid. Worry about your own reverance towards the eucharist when it comes to matters like this. Taking the eucharist in the hand and comparing that to dipping it in choclate milk are two completely different things. Im not saying those who take eucharist by mouth are trying to look pius. I take it by mouth and bow before every time i receive for my personal reasons and i leave it at that. I dont tell other ppl what is ok and not ok to do when it comes to things that even Rome says are ok to do. No disrespect meant dust we might just disagree on this one.

I don't think we disagree. I think taking communion by hand his perfectly acceptable until the Church tells us otherwise. Right now, it's an approved method of receiving. I have no problem with it.

My only concern was that you seemed to place little importance on the issue. We might, in fcat, disagree in that regard, as I think the method in which we receive God is extremely important. I hope that I'm just misunderstanding your point.

God bless.

[Good Friday]

However, a calamitous error of judgement then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice "has already developed in any place" a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase "has already developed" meant by that date, 28 May, 1969.

Emphasis mine on the above quote. Donna, I don't think it's for Michael Davies to decide when the Vatican has made "a calamitous error of judgement." I receive the Eucharist in the hand, and that's not because I feel that it's not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. I do it because that's the norm in the United States, approved by an indult.

I'm not saying people shouldn't receive on the tongue. But I'm saying there is nothing wrong with receiving in the hand here in the United States, since we have Vatican approval. Receiving on the hand vs. receiving on the tongue is a matter of discipline, and the Vatican can change discipline as it sees fit. It has seen fit to change discipline in the United States by permitting us to receive in the hand.

[Winchester]

I want Altar rails back.

[vianney]

I totally agree with you Dust. I think the way we receinve Jesus Christ in body is very important. What I was questioning and laughing about was the argument hand vs tongue is kinda foolish because the vatican approves both so why would it matter which we choose, especially to Jesus. Thats all, I just dont want ppl who receive it by hand to think that those who receive it by tongue are are being pius and vice versa for those who happen to receive it by tongue vs hand. Have you ever read the book "Eucharistic Miracles" Ne one who reads that book would understand how important and reverant the sacrament of the Eucharist is, i just think the agrument of hand vs tongue is irrelevant. But when it comes to disrespecting the eucharist then that is another subject i cant imagine ne catholic would disrespect the eucharist. As saint benedict says, "Even the angels bow down in adoration before humans as they receive christ." Think about that, that is pretty cool.

Your humble servant in christ jesus

Vianney

[Donna]

Wow. It is humbling to see these posts. You all love our Lord very much. Pray for me...

Nathan, I agree re: the "calamitous" remark. Michael Davies, a layman, has not the authority to judge as would a religious superior. But he is entitled to his opinion.

Jonie, again, great questions. I'll take the second one first. Bear with me if I'm quoting at length. dUSt is right, there are extremely important matters all sort of linked together concerning this.

Jonie's 2nd question paraphrased: Why does it matter in what way we receive?

Again, from Pope Paul's New Mass:

The Protestant Reformation

Unless we are to conclude that the Holy Ghost had abandoned the Church, it can be presumed that the transition from the reception of Communion in the hand to Its reception on the tongue was the result of divine guidance, a true liturgical development. The Instruction Memoriale Domini... explains that:

After the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence towards this holy sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread upon the tongue of the communicant.

The Protestant Reformers denied that the Eucharistic consecration changes the bread and wine in any way at all beyond giving them a new signification [they become symbols of Christ's Body and Blood -Donna]. Christ is in heaven and nowhere else, they taught, and to offer adoration to the bread and wine ("bread-worship") constitues idolatry. (pages 462-63).

[The following are exceprts from pages 463-65 -Donna]

"Martin Bucer expressed the Protestant consensus [save for the Lutherans] in his Censura, a criticism of the 1549 [Anglican] prayer book designed to secure the removal of any prayers or ceremonies which could be taken to imply a Catholic belief in the Real Presence or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...

People should therefore be taught that the Lord Christ is not offered in bread and wine but in godly minds, by means of his words and these symbols; and therefore bread and wine, even if it has been placed on the Lord's table, is no more holy apart from its use in the communion which the Lord instituted than any other bread and wine.

"Cranmer [Apostate bishop in England and heading the liturgical reform after England 's schism from the Catholic Church] duly complied with Bucer's demands and incorporated the practice of Communion in the hand in his 1552 Prayer Book. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting upon the change are unambiguous:

I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness that that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration [Holy Orders].

"It will be noted that the consecration of the priest's hands is seen as indicating the privilege of handling the Host... The fact that the Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence invested the practice with an anti-Catholic signification from that time onwards. This was a signification it did not possess in the early centuries."

Edited July 16, 2003 by Donna