FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Communion On the Tongue is an Apostolic Tradition
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Very striking  ... can anyone confirm if all these are definitely true?

COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE IS AN APOSTOLIC TRADITION

St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

Source: https://www.romancatholicman.com/communi...tradition/

Edited by Vox to remove ALL CAPS in subject line
I believe so. Outside of a reference or two to receiving communion in the hand for a period of time in the Early Church under certain circumstances, Communion in the Hand is a Protestant staple used to wipe away belief in transubstantiation and condemned repeatedly as a liturgical abuse/sacrilege,

Martin Bucer (Protestant Reformer), in England at the behest of Thomas Cranmer to help spread the new Anglican doctrine: “Every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested ... 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 honour they wished to show this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.

“I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think ... that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand; and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed–as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth–which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.

“In this way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand...”

Here are some more quotes of interest.

Holy Communion received on the tongue "signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist ... provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence ... is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.... It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."  -  Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969)

"There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." - John Paul II, responding to a reporter from Stimme des glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda (Germany) in November 1980.

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another."  -John Paul II, Inaestimabile Donum (April, 1980) -

"Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence....Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.” - Fr. Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.

"There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular.... Why—for God's sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it."  - Dietrich von Hildebrand (called a “20th century doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII), in an article entitled "Communion in the Hand should be Rejected," November 8, 1973.

"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.... Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish expressed by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”- Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina in his book Communion in the Hand: Documents and History.

Of course Paul VI went back on his word after dissident bishops after Vatican II started permitting it.  Same with JP II.

As many things Novus Ordo, the abuse becomes a permitted exception and then it becomes practically a obligational norm, as can be seen in any Diocesan Parish today.
I've heard of NO parishes where the priest will yell at people for trying to receive on the tongue or kneeling. I've thankfully never experienced this since I receive kneeling and on the tongue in the NO (whenever I go to one) as well, but it's really a shame as to what's happened.
Unfortunately, this is a bad list (it's been floating around for a while).  For the most part, they are either outright false (sometimes saying the opposite), incomplete, or slanted paraphrases.

Roger Buck Wrote:St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
This first one is actually ok.  Not sure if this one is a direct quote, but the Catholic Encyclopedia says he issued an "ordinance" that "none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14031b.htm

Roger Buck Wrote:St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
This is a bad one.  The part in quotation marks is not a quotation. In fact, St. Basil justifies taking larger portions of the Sacrament home for self communion without a priest present during times of persecution based on communion in the hand being normal in a church with the priest present. Just using common sense, why would a time of persecution make it so a priest couldn't place the Sacrament on your tongue rather than your hand?  Here's the real quote (from letter 93):

St. Basil, letter 93 Wrote:It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm

Roger Buck Wrote:The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
Basically, Saragossa did what this list attributes to Rouen to prevent Priscillianist abuse, and Rouen just issued a prohibition against women receiving in the hand (the date for Rouen is wrong).  This article from  a Catholic periodical in 1870 explains what these councils did and the context (the excerpt below is from page 445 and 446, but page 444 shows evidence for the practice of the reservation of the Eucharist in homes and the pages before that demonstrate the practice of reservation in general--I also did not include the footnotes below).

Union Review Wrote:A Calvinist author, Rudolph Hospiniau, has sought to prove that the custom of reservation in private houses was abolished by the Councils of Saragossa, A.D. 381: Toledo, an. 400; and Rouen, an. 800. Anyhow, such prohibition could only affect those dioceses which were subject to the authority of the above named Synods. But J. B. Thiers points out that the Councils of Saragossa and Toledo, had in view the Priscillianists, who, in order to escape the imputation of heresy, were wont to attend the services of the faithful, and to receive the Eucharist, without consuming it either in church or at home.

All that the Council of Rouen ordains, is that the celebrant is to communicate women by putting the Sacred Host into their mouth, not giving it into their hands.

When churches were multiplied, and Christians could fearlessly assist daily at the Sacred Mysteries, it was natural that the custom of keeping the Eucharist in their own houses should be discontinued. Baronius considers that, with some exceptions, it disappeared from the West early in the sixth century, although it lasted longer in the Eastern churches.
link

Roger Buck Wrote:6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with excommunication.
This is another real bad one.  The Council did the opposite--it punished those who rather than receiving with their bare hands, used vessels (canon 101):

Council of Constantinople aka Quinsext Council Wrote:The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

Roger Buck Wrote:St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
This is a true quote, but incomplete, and a bad citation (there's no objection 8). Here's the whole thing:

St. Thomas, Summa Wrote:I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, 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. 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.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article3

Even to St. Thomas, it doesn't seem like an absolute rule, as elsewhere (in the Summa text in the link) he mentions the law permitting deacons being able to do so with permission from their bishop or priest and even lay people in necessity.

Roger Buck Wrote:The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
The words in quotation marks are not a quote.  Here is the quote from Session 13, Chapter 8:

Council of Trent Wrote:As regards the reception of the sacrament, it has always been the custom in the Church of God that laics receive communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves,[38] which custom ought with justice and reason to be retained as coming down from Apostolic tradition.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

It's unclear whether the last clause deals with both the prior, or just the one about the priest self-communicating and, if it deals with the first too, if that specifically means on the tongue.  For context, in the canons that follow that preamble, there is only a canon about the priest self-communicating:

Council of Trent Wrote:Canon 10. If anyone says that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself,[51] let him be anathema.

Roger Buck Wrote:Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

This is a paraphrase from the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, but then the document goes on to provide for how and when Communion in the hand can be introduced. Anyway, here's the quote:

Memoriale Domini Wrote: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.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

As I said, it's contradictory because it says it "must" be retained, and then provides norms for not retaining it if you keep reading to the end of document--it even provides for communicants taking the host directly out of the ciborium...

Roger Buck Wrote:Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11)


This one is true, but it needs to completed, because it goes on to say when lay people can:

Dominicae Cenae Wrote: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. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-...cenae.html

As you can see, whoever made this list either totally misrepresents the  "quote" or leaves out additional language or context that doesn't help his thesis.
(01-18-2017, 01:11 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, this is a bad list (it's been floating around for a while).  For the most part, they are either outright false (sometimes saying the opposite), incomplete, or slanted paraphrases.

Roger Buck Wrote:St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
This first one is actually ok.  Not sure if this one is a direct quote, but the Catholic Encyclopedia says he issued an "ordinance" that "none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14031b.htm

Roger Buck Wrote:St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
This is a bad one.  The part in quotation marks is not a quotation. In fact, St. Basil justifies taking larger portions of the Sacrament home for self communion without a priest present during times of persecution based on communion in the hand being normal in a church with the priest present. Just using common sense, why would a time of persecution make it so a priest couldn't place the Sacrament on your tongue rather than your hand?  Here's the real quote (from letter 93):

St. Basil, letter 93 Wrote:It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm

Roger Buck Wrote:The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
Basically, Saragossa did what this list attributes to Rouen to prevent Priscillianist abuse, and Rouen just issued a prohibition against women receiving in the hand (the date for Rouen is wrong).  This article from  a Catholic periodical in 1870 explains what these councils did and the context (the excerpt below is from page 445 and 446, but page 444 shows evidence for the practice of the reservation of the Eucharist in homes and the pages before that demonstrate the practice of reservation in general--I also did not include the footnotes below).

Union Review Wrote:A Calvinist author, Rudolph Hospiniau, has sought to prove that the custom of reservation in private houses was abolished by the Councils of Saragossa, A.D. 381: Toledo, an. 400; and Rouen, an. 800. Anyhow, such prohibition could only affect those dioceses which were subject to the authority of the above named Synods. But J. B. Thiers points out that the Councils of Saragossa and Toledo, had in view the Priscillianists, who, in order to escape the imputation of heresy, were wont to attend the services of the faithful, and to receive the Eucharist, without consuming it either in church or at home.

All that the Council of Rouen ordains, is that the celebrant is to communicate women by putting the Sacred Host into their mouth, not giving it into their hands.

When churches were multiplied, and Christians could fearlessly assist daily at the Sacred Mysteries, it was natural that the custom of keeping the Eucharist in their own houses should be discontinued. Baronius considers that, with some exceptions, it disappeared from the West early in the sixth century, although it lasted longer in the Eastern churches.
link

Roger Buck Wrote:6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with excommunication.
This is another real bad one.  The Council did the opposite--it punished those who rather than receiving with their bare hands, used vessels (canon 101):

Council of Constantinople aka Quinsext Council Wrote:The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

Roger Buck Wrote:St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
This is a true quote, but incomplete, and a bad citation (there's no objection 8). Here's the whole thing:

St. Thomas, Summa Wrote:I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, 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. 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.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article3

Even to St. Thomas, it doesn't seem like an absolute rule, as elsewhere (in the Summa text in the link) he mentions the law permitting deacons being able to do so with permission from their bishop or priest and even lay people in necessity.

Roger Buck Wrote:The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
The words in quotation marks are not a quote.  Here is the quote from Session 13, Chapter 8:

Council of Trent Wrote:As regards the reception of the sacrament, it has always been the custom in the Church of God that laics receive communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves,[38] which custom ought with justice and reason to be retained as coming down from Apostolic tradition.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

It's unclear whether the last clause deals with both the prior, or just the one about the priest self-communicating and, if it deals with the first too, if that specifically means on the tongue.  For context, in the canons that follow that preamble, there is only a canon about the priest self-communicating:

Council of Trent Wrote:Canon 10. If anyone says that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself,[51] let him be anathema.

Roger Buck Wrote:Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

This is a paraphrase from the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, but then the document goes on to provide for how and when Communion in the hand can be introduced. Anyway, here's the quote:

Memoriale Domini Wrote: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.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

As I said, it's contradictory because it says it "must" be retained, and then provides norms for not retaining it if you keep reading to the end of document--it even provides for communicants taking the host directly out of the ciborium...

Roger Buck Wrote:Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11)


This one is true, but it needs to completed, because it goes on to say when lay people can:

Dominicae Cenae Wrote: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. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-...cenae.html

As you can see, whoever made this list either totally misrepresents the  "quote" or leaves out additional language or context that doesn't help his thesis.

Thanks for this SaintSebastian!  As always, the best thing to do is to check facts and go to the sources themselves.  This is why "proof texting" is pointless unless it's texts are put into proper context. You've always been one of the most erudite and careful folks here in the tank.  Salute
Roger Buck,

Here is a good source on this that might be of interest to you- Communion in the Hand and other Frauds by Michael Davies.

http://catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion.htm
(01-18-2017, 11:09 AM)GangGreen Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard of NO parishes where the priest will yell at people for trying to receive on the tongue or kneeling. I've thankfully never experienced this since I receive kneeling and on the tongue in the NO (whenever I go to one) as well, but it's really a shame as to what's happened.

I wonder what the priest would do if someone were to yell back.
Belated thanks for all this. Been ill ...

But this is very helpful indeed, SaintSebastien!  But also your link BC ...
Church Militant did a series a while back on the whole Communion in the Hand thing. Unfortunately, they don't have it for free anywhere. It's about 2 hours in length, pretty good information on all of this stuff.  I have an audio version of it if anyone is interested and it doesn't break the rules  Blush.
(02-08-2017, 08:30 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: [ -> ]Belated thanks for all this. Been ill ...

But this is very helpful indeed, SaintSebastien!  But also your link BC ...

Tip o' the hat

I should add, notwithstanding that list, I think there are actual strong arguments against Communion being given in the hand.  It's inaccurate to say the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue either came from Christ or the Apostles, or was always the universal practice.  Rather we should look at the real reasons the Church actually came to embrace it: to prevent abuses (like people taking the Sacrament home and throwing it away, etc.) and to increase reverence (by setting aside special hands, just like we set aside special vessels, etc. to emphasize the specialness of what we are dealing with).

The analysis therefore is whether where Communion being received in the hand has been re-introduced or spread, compared to the prior prevailing custom/law, has reverence been maintained or increased and have  abuse levels been maintained or decreased--or has the opposite happened?

Pages: 1 2