Communion In The Hand

[N/A Gone]

this is just horrible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1168149' date='Jan 17 2007, 01:09 PM']
Finally, someone with a balanced viewpoint!
[/quote]
Actually I find it to be a superficial and crude viewpoint. They aren't the first person to allude to the obvious fact that "[i]the plain act of Communion on the hand is not in itself wrong, or heretical, or any such thing[/i]" (see page 1). The real issues at stake go far beyond such an observation.

These sorts of statements: "the hand is nothing but muscle, bone, ligament, and skin, while the tongue is all muscle. It's not the physical vessel that's important, but the spirit, the 'heart', the attitude" are so generic and tiresome. There is no doubt an interior priority, but to imply that the physical doesn't matter is pretty gnostic.

Especially in the context of Liturgy where outward signs manifest and express the invisible mysteries. *shakes head*

Honestly, this entire line of discussion is meaningless to me since the real issues, somewhat indicated in previous posts, are of an entirely different character. To me the typical responses made by supporters of such things as Communion on the hand just reveal the extent to which the hijacking of the Church has succeeded.


This is pretty interesting:

[quote]Communion in the Hand
Rethinking Communion in the Hand
By Jude A Huntz
HOMELITIC & PASTORAL REVIEW March 1997
Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence?

The time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In Canada and the United States, it is true that one may receive "on the hand," with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue.

Even as we begin, it might immediately be objected: Communion in the hand is fully approved by the Church, and it is disloyal and disrespectful and therefore not allowed even to begin this discussion. In answer to that objection, let us begin with the legal aspects of the question.

1. The legal status of the two methods
It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an "indult," or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.

Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for Communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving Communion: on the tongue. Thus from the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal.

It must be further noted that the relevant legislation "strongly urges and exhorts" us all to receive Communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as "more reverent." One will search in vain for any encouragement of Communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful!

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behaviour but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, II)

In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which in each and every case accompanied the actual indult (L'instruction "Memoriale Domini"), the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.

2. The fragments . . .
If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind:

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. [Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis).

The Roman Catechism put it this way:

Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . . the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.
Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don't care, or don't know, etc.

To this must be added the increased danger of dropping the Host on the ground and the increased ease of stealing the Body of the Lord for superstitious or horrible purposes.

For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to Communion in the hand: "What about the fragments?"

3. Clericalism?
Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests are not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else who is receiving Communion, not even a priest, may do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest assists at Mass (and is not [con]celebrating) and if he wishes to receive Holy Communion, he does not do so by his own hand: he receives on the tongue from another priest. The same is true of a bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself.

When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own "eucharistic minister" and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly.

4. "Communion in the hand" is a misnomer
To place the Sacred Host in the hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved.

5. Some Scriptural considerations . . .
In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows:

And [the Lord] said to me: . . . "But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you." And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it . . . And He said to me, "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat ["And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book" - Vulgate]. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it." Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ezek. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV).

It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened his mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven.

In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it . . . . But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock." "I will fill it," not "fill it yourselves."

Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

Again, it is certainly eminently scriptural to refrain from touching something as a sign of reverence (and not only scriptural, but even universally human). In the case of the Ark of the Covenant, it was absolutely forbidden to touch it, under pain of death. Even when it was "necessary" to do so, as it seemed to one unfortunate ark-bearer, it was still forbidden. And the fellow paid the supreme price for his temerity in reaching out to steady the ark: "When they came to the floor of Machon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and He struck him for his rashness and he died there before the ark of God" (II Sam. 6:6,7). We have greater than the Ark of the Covenant here.

6. The Last Supper
But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus' time and which is still the case: one feeds one's guests with one's own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas's hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as "Friend" the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, "giving himself by his own hand."

7. Take and eat . . .
Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, "Take and eat"? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful "took" and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

8. The provenance of Communion in the hand
The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or "Reformation." Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a "false archaeologism": an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ's faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the "liturgical establishment" in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.

When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least "mis-information" was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear.

We can summarize that the practice of Communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

9. Was it universal?
The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to "make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion]." This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one's hands, since just as one wouldn't let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.

According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.

In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the "elevation"-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).

It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.

The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to "take and eat," and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.

It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone's mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope's manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?

We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one's hand.

So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one's own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. "It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon" (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.

In his article on "Communion" in the Dictionaire d'Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.

After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the apostles.

Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths." The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week's duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Of course, the promoters of "Communion in the hand" generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.

Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: "Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen."

There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: "Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them." This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint's successor who wrote it.

It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century.

10. Who promotes Communion in the hand?
(This argument might be accused of the logical fallacy of "guilt by association." But that argument is not necessarily false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and their followers) who promote Communion in the hand are the same persons who, for the most part, have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong emphasis on the personal, bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy Communion is not something which modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed, they even discourage it. Our attention is to be on the community, they say. In general, we can apply to the distorters (knowing and unknowing) of the Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to the Mass the following words of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of "the idolatry of the intermediate to the oblivion of the ultimate." Well, these are the promoters of Communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the traditional manner of reception. Why?

11. Communion in the hand is too casual
What kind of foods do we eat with our hands? Often, in our "culture," it is food to which one pays no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying it no attention while our eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on snacks at a party, while engaged in conversation. Particularly with children, but not only with them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.

12. To possess and control God?
It is consoling to hear our Creator say to us, "I have carved you in the palm of My hand." It is of primary importance to recall that "He made us, we belong to him." But what is Communion in the hand saying at a symbolic level?

Often something is placed in our hands as a sign of ownership and control. The consummation of the purchase of a new home or automobile is in the handing over of the keys. We might even toss them in the air and triumphantly catch them. But should we take him (unnecessarily) into our hands whom the earth and the sea cannot contain?

13. Authentic inter-ritual and ecumenical considerations
If we glance around the Catholic world, at the twenty-one rites of the true Church, we must ask, "how do they receive Holy Communion?" If the present writer is not wrong, they do not or hardly ever receive Communion in their hands. And under those rare circumstances that they do, on particular days, they receive in a far different manner than ourselves, taking pains to purify their hands both before and after.

We must further ask if some of the propaganda in favor of Communion in the hand, on the part of modern liturgists, is not deeply offensive to our fellow Catholics, such as when the traditional manner of receiving Communion is said to be "childish" (or when intinction is criticized).

And if we take a look at those of our separated brethren who share with us an explicit, and orthodox belief if the Holy Eucharist, we must ask ourselves: "How do they receive Communion?" Further, is true Christian unity promoted by the present decadent state of our Eucharistic practice, of which a significant part is Communion in the hand?

14. Its fruits . . .
We must be rigorously honest with ourselves. Has this practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, greater love, and a more abundant fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the Lord's Body into our hands?

At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger liturgical reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to this writer, at least, that Communion in the hand must share part of the blame for the decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.

15. The Pope . . . and Mother Teresa of Calcutta
It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of Communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. It was also illicit until very recently in the Vatican Basilica. And he has even refused to do it in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See.

The most remarkable example of this last is the time when the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d'Estaing approached the Pope for Holy Communion with hands outstretched. He ignored those hands and placed the Sacred Host into her (astonished) mouth. (Actually, she need not have been astonished; explicit instructions had been given that the Pope would not give Communion in the hand.)

The Missionaries of Charity have no qualms about touching Christ in the guise of the poor, lifting him out of the gutters, and cleaning his maggot infested wounds. They choose, however, not to touch him in his Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. All of Mother Teresa's sisters are united both in their many hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of reception of Holy Communion: on the tongue.

Mother Teresa herself evidently regards the practice in a somewhat negative light:

I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don't know why-"Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."4

Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch it. "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, 11).

A practical course of action ought to be undertaken or these reflections would be next to useless. A minimal thing to do would be to broadcast far and wide the legal status of Communion in the hand and the urgent desire of the Church that we in fact not receive Communion in that manner. A thorough and well understood catechesis in the integral Catholic Faith should lead to a rejection of the practice. In particular, we should include a renewed and due emphasis on the Divinity of Christ, the burning love of his Sacred Heart for us, the Real Presence and the adoration due it, and the need for reparation.

Adult converts and catechumens and children preparing for First Communion have habitually been denied in many places even knowing about the traditional manner of receiving the Lord, let alone being allowed to choose that method. Without coercion, they should gently be guided towards what is objectively superior and a very important safeguard for their delicate faith.

Priests should refuse "Communion in the hand" unless it is manifestly being done with great care and correctness, including astute attention to the fragments. They should question their penitents as to their manner of receiving the Sacred Host, and, if the penitent receives in the hand, he should be encouraged to at least think about a healthy change for the better.

We have of course not argued that Communion in the hand is in itself evil or sacrilegious. And, together with the Pope we acknowledge that it can be done with reverence and care. But this practice has been the occasion of great harm to the Church and to souls. It has expedited "indifference, outrages and sacrileges" towards Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

It is implicated in the manifest lessening of faith in the Real Presence which we see in our times.

Reparation is needed. In addition to heartfelt prayer, let us make every effort, according to the light which the Lord has given us, and according to our state in life, and our resources, to contribute to the day when it will only be a reference in the history books.
[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1167820' date='Jan 17 2007, 01:11 AM']
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.
[/quote]


Somebody need a chill-pill? . I doubt she said that. Far as I can tell it only comes from one source, and one I don't really count as entirely credible considering their association with the alleged Bayside prophecies. I don't really think she would have said something like that. But then again, I assume the worst of everybody .

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1168239' date='Jan 17 2007, 02:36 PM']
Somebody need a chill-pill? . I doubt she said that. Far as I can tell it only comes from one source, and one I don't really count as entirely credible considering their association with the alleged Bayside prophecies. I don't really think she would have said something like that. But then again, I assume the worst of everybody .
[/quote]
I've looked into it and it appears that she really did say that.

Rather than flipping out and calling Mother Teresa stupid I think people should at least try to understand where she was coming from. I for one pretty much agree with Mother Teresa. If this scandalizes people then maybe they need to be scandalized. Millions of us are scandalized by the pseudo-Catholicism that is cheaply pawned off in today's world.

[goldenchild17]

If she did say it, kudos to her. How did you find out? Did you find another source because I was unable to.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168245' date='Jan 17 2007, 02:39 PM']
I've looked into it and it appears that she really did say that.

Rather than flipping out and calling Mother Teresa stupid I think people should at least try to understand where she was coming from. I for one pretty much agree with Mother Teresa. If this scandalizes people then maybe they need to be scandalized. Millions of us are scandalized by the pseudo-Catholicism that is cheaply pawned off in today's world.
[/quote]
Last I checked this is a bogus quote. She DID say abortion was the worst thing in the world.

However, if she did or didn't it really doesn't matter, she has the right to her own personal opinion, saints are not saints because we consider them infallible. The Church has ruled Communion in the hand perfctly acceptable, it is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. Communion in the hand was present in the early Church.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168237' date='Jan 17 2007, 02:36 PM']
Actually I find it to be a superficial and crude viewpoint. They aren't the first person to allude to the obvious fact that "[i]the plain act of Communion on the hand is not in itself wrong, or heretical, or any such thing[/i]" (see page 1). The real issues at stake go far beyond such an observation.

These sorts of statements: "the hand is nothing but muscle, bone, ligament, and skin, while the tongue is all muscle. It's not the physical vessel that's important, but the spirit, the 'heart', the attitude" are so generic and tiresome. There is no doubt an interior priority, but to imply that the physical doesn't matter is pretty gnostic.

Especially in the context of Liturgy where outward signs manifest and express the invisible mysteries. *shakes head*

Honestly, this entire line of discussion is meaningless to me since the real issues, somewhat indicated in previous posts, are of an entirely different character. To me the typical responses made by supporters of such things as Communion on the hand just reveal the extent to which the hijacking of the Church has succeeded.
This is pretty interesting:
[/quote]

At least give me credit for taking part in this discussion in a good faith manner. I'm open to correction. However, I don't appreciate being told that my viewpoint is "superficial and crude." You make some good points, but FWIW it's hard for me to get past essentially being called names.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]MEMORIALE DOMINI (Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion)[/b]
"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.'" - [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM[/url][/quote]In my first post on this topic I quoted the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship whom stated very clearly that it is more pious and reverent to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, which they define not to be on the hand. Therefore, one cannot in good faith reject the intellectual understanding of the Congregation for Divine Worship without violating the Code of Canon Law or at least declaring you are clearer than theses Bishops who devoted their lives to understand this theology.[quote][b]Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite[/b]
[b]Can. 752[/b] Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

[b]Can. 753[/b] Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

[b]Can. 754[/b] All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM[/url][/quote] Concerning what the worst thing in the world is, this is a rather relative topic. If we are speaking of the mass murder of innocent children in the womb or the lack of belief in the faithful of God, either can be considered horrific but admittedly how we rank them all revolves around how we understand the evils to interact. The question we must ask ourselves is “does the loss of this reverence promote or have Catholics feel like they may make their own subjective judgments on religion and morality”? But again I think we could come to many different conclusions on this topic.

But we ought to not quiver over what the worst evil is but rather combat evil at all times, it is apart of being in spiritual warfare. Therefore, we ought not to difference ourselves in permitting lesser evils because there are greater evils afoot. Using this same concept wouldn’t it make sense to a teenager to tell their parents “dude, there’s abortion afoot, its not like this is really bad.” We need to be vigilant as our Blessed Lord commanded for we know neither the day nor the hour thus must constantly be preparing ourselves.

The well known Bayside Apparitions (Our Lady of the Roses) has been two times condemned solemnly by the Holy Catholic Church; Catholic Faithful are therefore to avoid such apparitions and such people whom advocate it as Canon Law suggests.[quote]The Bayside Movement Condemned both by the Congregation for Divine Faith on June 14, 1966 and then again by John Mugavero, Bishop of Brooklyn, on November 4, 1986.

[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005.htm"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005a.htm"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005a.htm[/url][/quote]The Church in her more recent documents have spoken about the use of “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” almost naming them as an abuse laying down strict regulation, of which so far in the United States have appeared to be ignored.[quote][b]Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
"Redemptionis Sacramentum"
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)[/b]
Friday, April 23, 2004

[b]146[/b]. There can be no substitute whatsoever for the ministerial Priesthood. For if a Priest is lacking in the community, then the community lacks the exercise and sacramental function of Christ the Head and Shepherd, which belongs to the essence of its very life. For “the only minister who can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.

[b]151[/b]. Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.

[b]154[/b]. As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[b]156[/b]. This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[b]157[/b]. If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

[b]158[/b]. Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...amentum_en.html[/url][/quote]While Holy Communion in the hand is “permitted” by the Church it is not in of it self a right, for at any time the Local Bishop, the Conference of Bishops, the Congregation for Divine Worship, or the Pope decided to retract their approval (namely the pope) it would be no longer permitted. For the Church has many times reiterated that Holy Communion.[quote]Letter from the Vatican - EWTN Answer
This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "... while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneelin...r_communion.htm[/url][/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1168283' date='Jan 17 2007, 03:36 PM']
At least give me credit for taking part in this discussion in a good faith manner. I'm open to correction. However, I don't appreciate being told that my viewpoint is "superficial and crude." You make some good points, but FWIW it's hard for me to get past essentially being called names.
[/quote]
totally. my thing was directed at the arguments, not you as a person. I make crude arguments all the time. Sorry for being so bombastic, I do appreciate your central point btw.

[N/A Gone]

If the church says it is ok, and it is the church that was put in charge to lead and protect us. Then why are we complaining? If we in the church have been raised receiving on the tongue, or in the hand. Is not the important thing to focus on our receiving? Any argument that is presented can be presented from the other side. We sound divisive, we sound like sheep angry at the shepherd. I am not proud by this thread

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1168270' date='Jan 17 2007, 03:21 PM']
Last I checked this is a bogus quote. She DID say abortion was the worst thing in the world.

However, if she did or didn't it really doesn't matter, she has the right to her own personal opinion, saints are not saints because we consider them infallible. The Church has ruled Communion in the hand perfctly acceptable, it is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. Communion in the hand was present in the early Church.
[/quote]

Off topic question about her real quick. Has your guys' church canonized her yet? Just wondering.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1168270' date='Jan 17 2007, 03:21 PM']
Last I checked this is a bogus quote. She DID say abortion was the worst thing in the world.

However, if she did or didn't it really doesn't matter, she has the right to her own personal opinion, saints are not saints because we consider them infallible. The Church has ruled Communion in the hand perfctly acceptable, it is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. Communion in the hand was present in the early Church.
[/quote]
Fr. George Rutler apparently testifies to the Mother Teresa quote and at this point I have more reason to believe in it than to doubt it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168340' date='Jan 17 2007, 05:08 PM']
Fr. George Rutler apparently testifies to the Mother Teresa quote and at this point I have more reason to believe in it than to doubt it.
[/quote]
Either way it doesn't matter.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1168354' date='Jan 17 2007, 05:35 PM']
Either way it doesn't matter.
[/quote]
It matters to me because I don't think Mother Teresa would say something like that if it wasn't something worth thinking about at least.

[Romans1513]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I thought I might add my 2 cents for whatever its worth...

I think what Mother Teresa was trying to say is simply that there is not enough respect given to the Eucharist, and I think it is very valid to say that that is a big problem in the world today.

For the record, I do not take Communion in the hand anymore, but I did up until about 4 or 5 months ago. For me, it reminds me to focus more on the absolute AMAZINGness of what I am able to receive. (among other reasons for doing so)

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1168664' date='Jan 17 2007, 09:04 PM']
I didn't read this entire thread, but I thought I might add my 2 cents for whatever its worth...

I think what Mother Teresa was trying to say is simply that there is not enough respect given to the Eucharist, and I think it is very valid to say that that is a big problem in the world today.

For the record, I do not take Communion in the hand anymore, but I did up until about 4 or 5 months ago. For me, it reminds me to focus more on the absolute AMAZINGness of what I am able to receive. (among other reasons for doing so)
[/quote]
I tend to agree. My problem is not with Communion on the hand in itself, but in connection with the general banality and profanity of mainstream Catholic culture.

I would assume that Mother Teresa's perspective was primarily spiritual. If you consider the Church to be the ark of salvation in the world, and the Eucharist to be the source and summit of the Christian life, it makes more sense that a pandemic of Eucharist profanation might constitute the most saddening state of affairs in the world. It is a perspective of spiritual realities and grace, not of worldly concerns and wholly temporal conditions.

And again, the tendency in many countries to promote hand reception above the univeral norm becomes a kind of outward sign of the satanic attack on Eucharistic awareness and devotion.

It must be made clear that this is not to be misconstrued as an attack on individuals who receive on the hand. Certainly it is quite licit to receive on the hand in dioceses where the Bishop has approved the practice in accord with the indult, and it is certainly true that hand reception does not by nature imply that the communicant has less devotion than the tongue communicant.

[philosophette]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168237' date='Jan 17 2007, 01:36 PM']
Actually I find it to be a superficial and crude viewpoint. They aren't the first person to allude to the obvious fact that "[i]the plain act of Communion on the hand is not in itself wrong, or heretical, or any such thing[/i]" (see page 1). The real issues at stake go far beyond such an observation.

These sorts of statements: "the hand is nothing but muscle, bone, ligament, and skin, while the tongue is all muscle. It's not the physical vessel that's important, but the spirit, the 'heart', the attitude" are so generic and tiresome. There is no doubt an interior priority, but to imply that the physical doesn't matter is pretty gnostic.

Especially in the context of Liturgy where outward signs manifest and express the invisible mysteries. *shakes head*

Honestly, this entire line of discussion is meaningless to me since the real issues, somewhat indicated in previous posts, are of an entirely different character. To me the typical responses made by supporters of such things as Communion on the hand just reveal the extent to which the hijacking of the Church has succeeded.
This is pretty interesting:
[/quote]


My big issue with those who make are so fixated with the WAY in which we recieve the Eucharist, when the disposition of piety is there, is that they try to make God so untouchable and distant from his people. I do not like the pre-vatican church where there is this sort of reserve. To some it is reverence, but being someone not born during that time, it does not inspire devotion.

Like St Therese, I wish I could be a priest and hold Christ in my hands, but since women are not called by God to be priests, I am completely fine with that. Yet, everyone is so focused on splicing hairs, but by the time we actually approach Christ in Holy Communion we are too busy judging those who receive in the hand or bow, or do not bow, or genuflect or do not genuflect, that we lose sight of Christ himself.

No wonder Jesus said, "Do not hinder the little children!" he mentioned nothing of adults.

[Romans1513]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168712' date='Jan 17 2007, 10:20 PM']
It must be made clear that this is not to be misconstrued as an attack on individuals who receive on the hand. Certainly it is quite licit to receive on the hand in dioceses where the Bishop has approved the practice in accord with the indult, and it is certainly true that hand reception does not by nature imply that the communicant has less devotion than the tongue communicant.
[/quote]

yes! I wanted to add something to this effect, but I wasn't sure how to word it. What matters most is the devotion of the communicant.

[Mr.Cat]

No one has the right to hold our Blessed Lord for we all are sinners, it is only the Priest acting in the Persona of Christ that holds Him in consecrated and holy hands (for they are the hands of Christ). I would rather revere and in holy fear honor my Blessed Lord by receiving Him through the mouth remembering I am merely a child. The Church most earnestly exhorts Holy Communion in the traditional manner and any person whom truly revered our Blessed Lord in love would certainly want to honor Him in such a humbling of one’s self and one’s own wishes or desires...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1168724' date='Jan 17 2007, 10:37 PM']
yes! I wanted to add something to this effect, but I wasn't sure how to word it. What matters most is the devotion of the communicant.
[/quote]
Subjectively I suppose, but from the bigger perspective we must keep in mind precisely what liturgical norms are and why they're important. They are not arbitrary rules that are eclipsed by private devotion and taking them seriously does not make one a "hair splitter". Liturgical norms are in essence (to quote the Church herself) "[i]manifestations of what we believe and what we have received from tradition[/i]".

But I don't believe that this discussion can even begin to approach any kind of resolution if it remains focused on communion on the hand. The real issues that make this an issue in the first place are much broader.

Insane numbers of Catholics are totally unaware of the Real Presence or simply don't believe in it. I have had priests "inform" me of the fact that since Vatican II belief in the Real Presence is optional. Catholic morality has also become optional apparently. And yet I'm to believe that it is totally trivial and inconsequential that during a crisis of this magnitude a rogue movement would gain ground in promoting the practice of Communion on the hand? Why would something so 'trivial' as this have been such a passionate issue for these crusaders? In light of where we're at it is all too fitting. [i]Lex orandi, lex credendi[/i] after all. Most people probably don't realize that Communion on the hand started in the modern Church as organized rebellion.

Seriously though, why do people receive on the hand these days? I'm not asking this as a personal question but as a question of culture. How and why is it that we find ourselves in a Catholic culture in which hand reception is the norm? How did this come about? Who were some of the master minds? What did these people believe about the Church? What were these people's intentions? What was the ultimate agenda? Self proclaimed 'architects of a new Catholicism'.

These are the sorts of things that drive my perspective, not whether or not receiving on the hand is in itself some kind of intrinsically evil act. And this particular subject is just the tip of the iceberg.