http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/02/australian-archdiocesan-paper-communion.html

Australian Archdiocesan paper: Communion in the tongue is "unhygienic", disruptive and based on "over-emphasis on Christ's divinity"



The sanctuary of St. Stephen's Cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. Source.

The following is an excerpt from "Communion in the Hand", a short essay authored by Elizabeth Harrington, the education officer of the Liturgy Commission of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. Dated February 12, 2012, it is currently on the website of "The Catholic Leader", a newspaper published by the Archdiocese of Brisbane that claims to be Australia's "leading Catholic newspaper". "Communion in the Hand" is the latest essay in the "Liturgy Lines" series, which is promoted on the main website of the Archdiocese of Brisbane as providing "all you want to know about Catholic worship". (See the right side of this page.)



Receiving communion on the tongue when the majority receive in the hand disrupts the unity that uniformity of posture and practice at Communion symbolises and builds. It is awkward for ministers to give communion on the tongue to people who are standing, which is the recommended posture for communion in Australia, (and it is unhygienic because it is difficult for ministers to avoid passing saliva on to other communicants.  


Historical accounts make it quite clear that communion was received in the hand in the early Church. In the middle of the fourth century Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem gave this instruction to those who were about to join the church: “When you come forward for communion, do not draw near with your hands wide open or with fingers spread apart; instead, with you left hand make a throne for the right hand, which will receive the King. Receive the body of Christ in the hollow of your hand and give the response: Amen.” It was only later that over-emphasis on Christ’s divinity and on human sinfulness led to a ban on people receiving communion in the hand. In fact, people seldom received communion at all. (Our readers might want to read this debunking of the alleged quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem - Augustinus)


 We now understand that Christ is present in several special ways at Mass apart from in the consecrated elements, for example in the assembly which gathers. We “touch” Christ in these other manifestations, so it would be inconsistent not to be able to take Christ under the form of bread in our hands. The bread which becomes the body of Christ is described in the liturgical texts as “work of human hands”. There is nothing unworthy about our hands. (Yet another reason to get rid of the Bugnini Offertory? - Augustinus) After all, we use them to do Christ’s work. As St Teresa said, “Christ has no other hands but yours”.

That's the most repugnant depiction of a "crucifixion" that I've ever seen.

The hygienic superiority of communion in the hand is balderdash. First of all, the hands are generally at the top of the list of unclean surfaces.

But the communion under both species practiced in most Novus Ordo churches is even worse.  Back in the old days before I was enlightened enough to process the truth I would attend Novus liturgies as part of the choir.  At the end of the ceremony myriad "wine ministers" would run around expecting the backstage people to empty the wine vessel which was essentially a spit cup at the point. I found new ways to hide and eventually had to go to the true mass to solve the problem. (Well, there were more reasons than that).

:tinfoil:

I don't have any of these apprehensions with the true Consecration as I know God watches over me.

That's the most repugnant depiction of a "crucifixion" that I've ever seen.

 :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Holy Mother of God pray for us!   How could they ????

The photo and essay tell you all you need to know about the Novus Ordo, don't they?

Pretty much... now we just wait for their defenders to make it on here spinning this in a positive light, or confining it somehow

:detective:

I have never accepted the argument that some make that only consecrated hands may touch the Blessed Sacrament, and that lay persons must not receive Holy Communion in the hand for that reason. It is an argument which is first of all unreasonable (because if our hands are not worthy to touch the Eucharist, then why isn't our tongue likewise unworthy?), but moreover one which seems to me to miss the point, entirely.

St. Thomas Aquinas said that only Consecrated hands may touch the Eucharist. Are you saying he's wrong?

I have never accepted the argument that some make that only consecrated hands may touch the Blessed Sacrament, and that lay persons must not receive Holy Communion in the hand for that reason. It is an argument which is first of all unreasonable (because if our hands are not worthy to touch the Eucharist, then why isn't our tongue likewise unworthy?), but moreover one which seems to me to miss the point, entirely.

Strictly speaking, everyone is unworthy of Holy Communion, and no one can merit such a grace, as that would be tantamount to saying one can merit Christ Himself, which is absurd. Holy Communion is an ineffable expression of the infinite and eternal charity wherewith Christ has loved us, and He yearns for us to receive Him more than we can ever possibly yearn to receive Him. It falls to the Church to determine the rites and ceremonies whereby the administration of Holy Communion is to be wrought.

There are Scriptural precedents that sanction the laity's tangible distance from the Sacred Species: "And when they came to the floor of Chidon, Oza put forth his hand, to hold up the ark: for the ox being wanton had made it lean a little on one side. And the Lord was angry with Oza, and struck him, because he had touched the ark; and he died there before the Lord" (I Para. ch. xiii., 9-10).

Moreover, the Priest, by virtue of his Ordination, is endued with an ontological superiority, a dignity excelling even that of the Seraphim and Cherubim, as he thereby becomes an "alter Christus" and is given the power to work the greatest of prodigies: that of transubstantiation. After Ordination, a Catholic man is not a mere man anymore: but a Priest, to whom these words of Holy Writ apply most especially, "You shall be holy unto me, because I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from other people, that you should be mine" (Lev. ch. xx., 26). It makes sense that he alone is to touch the Sacred Species, since he alone is the instrumentality whereby the bread and wine are transubstantiated upon the sacred Altar into Our Lord Himself.

To allow the laity to touch the Sacred Species with their own hands has given in most cases the false impression that they are on par with the Priest, which is untrue and the assertion thereof harkens back to Protestant errors and blasphemies against the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This is all the more pertinent as Catholics in the N.O. have been bamboozled into thinking that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a "communal celebration," a "unifying affirmation of faith," or some such thing, and the Priest is merely a minister who "presides" over the congregation as they "celebrate the Lord's Supper."

But I see your point:

The priest handles the Holy Eucharist with his hands, of course, but he also purifies his fingers that touch the consecrated hosts, afterwards, whereas the congregation do not purify their hands, obviously.

If they are to insist that the faithful are to receive the Sacred Species with their hands, there should also be for the faithful a corresponding rite of "purification" as there is for the Priest: I think that's what you mean.

However, that would be logistically unfeasible, and the very idea of "purification" entails the reality of sin, which is something the N.O. does not wish to emphasize it seems...

Since the unfathomable chasm that exists between the Priest and the faithful has been suppressed in favor of a more "democratic view," why even have a purification or ablution rite at all? It becomes superfluous since every Catholic "participates in the mystery of Christ as Priest, King and Prophet" - the laity are consecrated also, according to this false notion.

That was how it began, by having novelties such as "Communion in the Hand," and now we read things like "over-emphasizing Christ's divinity" - a horrible blasphemy that has no name.

If they are to insist that the faithful are to receive the Sacred Species with their hands, there should also be for the faithful a corresponding rite of "purification" as there is for the Priest: I think that's what you mean.

No. What I mean is that they should not insist that the faithful receive the Sacred Species with their hands. The congregation should receive Communion on the tongue. And the whole reason we communicate at all is that Christ transforms our relationship with God, through His humanity, from one of veiled distance to one of intimacy.

I am sorry to bring this somewhat antiquated subject back, but the signature of a certain forum member brought it to my attention.


While I am hugely in favor of the complete restoration of the reception of Communion on the tongue as known in the Tridentine Mass, and the current praxis of "communion in the hand" differs somewhat from ancient customs, I think it is very unwise to publish articles such as these:

Great debunking of the St. Cyril/ Communion in the Hand historical fiction...

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/10/great-catholic-horror-story-historical.html

or even stating that Communion in the hand is a complete novelty:

...by having novelties...

The only thing the article on Rorate-Caeli is proving is, that traditionalist authors are chronically incapable of producing solid theological material, and that they are producing one novelty after the other themselves.

The first part of the article in regards to antiquarism is not even relevant, as it is subject to wide interpretation. After all, one could easily accuse Dom Guéranger, even St. Pius X. or the very Pius XII. as "antiquarists" for their restoration of earlier liturgies, chant et alia.

The description of that bizarre rite, even if not always necessarily sacrilegious, became part of the Mystagogical Catechesis through the work of a successor of St. Cyril, who most (scholars) retain was “Bishop John,” a crypto-Arian, influenced by Origen and Pelagius and thus, contested by St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine.

This statement is unsupported and a novelty amongst the judgement of celebrated liturgists. Bl. Ildefons Schuster, Cardinal of Milan, whom Hobbledehoy frequently scanned and posted for our edification and study, wrote such:

In early Christendom, the faithful received the Body of the Lord into their hands and consumed him; they drunk the holy Blood from the chalice, which a Deacon presented them. Cyrill of Jerusalem describes the communion celebration such: [the famous passage is quoted] …
The inscription of Pectorius – first half of the 3rd century – knows the same custom, to receive the holy Host into the hand: “Eat and nourish yourself, holding the ichtys in your hand.”

Further, it is unproven that the said Bishop John of Jerusalem was the author, nor that he is an Arian . The only thing that is known of him is, that he wrote in defence of Origen, as did many members of Eastern Monasticism, most notably St. Jerome.
Besides, the authorship is of not much importance, since all liturgist are stating that it represents the orthodox liturgical usage in Jerusalem in the 4th century.

Only in cases of grave necessity and in times of persecution, St. Basil assures us, the norms could be derogated, permitting the lay  to receive Communion in the hand. (P.G.,XXXII, coll. 483-486).

Here St. Basil speaks about self-communicating, which was forbidden in different times of the Church, safe in persecution. He does not condemn communion in the hand at all, as last passage from the cited passage shows:

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.

It is clear we do not intend to review all the testimonies invocated to demonstrate that the custom of placing the Sacred Species on the tongue of lay communicants was in use in antiquity, neither do we intend to indicate something only symptomatic, and what is more, sufficient, to disprove what they assert, that for a thousand years, the universal Church in both East and West, was in the habit of placing the Sacred Species in the hands of the faithful.

Sed contra:

Convenientibus autem civibus cuм sacerdote ad festivitatem beati martyris Iuliani, ad pedes episcopi Eulalius ille prosternitur quaerens se inauditum a communione remotum. Tunc episcopus permisit eum cuм ceteris missarum expectare sollemnia. Verum ubi ad communicandum ventum est, et Eulalius ad altarium accessit, ait episcopus: Rumor populi parricidam te proclamant esse. Ego vero utrum perpetraveris hoc scelus an non ignoro. Idcirco in Dei hoc et beati martyris Iuliani statuo iudicium. Tu vero si idoneus es ut adseris, accede propius et sume tibi Eucharistiae particulam, atque inpone ore tuo, erit enim Deus respector conscientiae tuae. At ille accepta Eucharistia communicans abscessit.

can. 36: Non licet mulieri nuda manu Eucharistiam
              accipere
can. 42: Ut unaquaquis mulier quando communicat
              dominicale suum habeat. Quod si qua non
              habuerit usque in alio die dominico non com-
              municet.

Celebratis missis accedunt sacerdotes et leuitae, clerici et laici ad sanctam eucharistiam corporis domini et ad poculum salutare. Ad communicandum etiam laicis et feminis patent sancta sanctorum. Omnes uiri autem quando ad sacrosanctum altarium communicandi gratia accessuri sunt, lauant prius manus suas : et omnes mulieres nitida exhibent linteamina ubi corpus Christi accipiunt.

Omnes viri quando communicare desiderant lavant
manus suas, et omnes mulieres nitida exhibent linteamina ubi corpus Christi accipiunt.

Manus est quae cibum ori ministrat: manus est quae praeclaris enitet factis, quae conciliatrix divinae gratiae sacris infertur altaribus, per quam offerimus et sumimus sacramenta coelestia: manus est quae operatur pariter atque dispensat divina mysteria, cujus vocabulo non dedignatus est se Dei filius declarari, dicente David: Dextera Domini fecit virtutem, dextera Domini exaltavit me.

Sed cuм ille panes frangat, et det discipulis, si tu manus non extendas tuas ut accipias tibi escas, deficies in via, nec poteris in eum culpam tuam referre, qui miseretur et dividit, sed his dividit, qui cuм eo etiam in deserto permanent, qui primo et secundo die et tertio non recedunt.

Saint Eutichiano, Pope from 275 to 283, so that laypeople would not touch the Sacred Species with their hands, forbade them to take the Blessed Sacrament to the sick: «Nullus præsumat tradere communionem laico vel femminæ ad deferendum infirmo» (Let no-one dare consign Holy Communion to a lay man or woman for them to take to the sick) (P.L.,V, coll.163-168).

As before with St. Basil, the same applies to Pope St. Eutychianus, as well as the Quinisextum and Tridentinum. The question is the reception of Holy Communion through the laity.

Saint Gregory the Great narrates that Saint Agapito, Pope from 535 to 536, during the short months of his pontificate, went to Constantinople and healed a deaf-mute during the act of «ei dominicuм Corpus in os mitteret» (placing the Body of the Lord in his mouth). (Dialogues III,3).

This quote is more apt to prove the contrary, that is, it shows that placing the Body of Lord on the tongue of the deaf-mute was something extraordinary, not ordinary! Longer quote: ”cuмque ei Dominicuм corpus in os mitteret, illa diu muta ad loquendum lingua soluta est.”
Otherwise, a description would not have been necessary, the special connection of laying Communion in his mouth with his muteness not there.

Even earlier, the Council of Saragozza in 380, had launched excommunication to those who dared to treat the Most Holy Eucharist as if they were in a time of persecution, a time in which even lay-people found themselves out of necessity, touching the Sacred Species with their hands. (SAENZ DE AGUIRRE, Notitia Conciliorum Hispaniæ, Salamanca, 1686, pag. 495).

I can only read in the decrees of the Council, that the Eucharist is to be consumed in Church.
 

Undisciplined innovators were not lacking even in antiquity. This induced the ecclesiastical authorities to call them to order. The Council of Rouen did just that, around 650, forbidding the minister of the Eucharist to place the Sacred Species in the hand of lay communicants: «[Presbyter] illud etiam attendat ut eos [fideles] propria manu communicet, nulli autem laico aut fœminæ Eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os eius cuм his verbis ponat: "Corpus Domini et sanguis prosit tibi in remissionem peccatorum et ad vitam æternam". Si quis hæc transgressus fuerit, quia Deum omnipotentem comtemnit, et quantum in ipso est inhonorat, ab altari removeatur» (P.G., vol. X, coll.1099-1100).

This is correct, and it is the first direct indication of communion administered in the mouth.
But apart from this regional Synod (just as with Saragozza, the term “Council” is not correct, strictly speaking), the sources approving Communion administered in the hand are much more numerous, some I have quoted above.

Before Communion in the mouth became the more dominant practise in the 9th century, much more changes will come: The change to unleavened bread, the abolishing of Communion under both species to the faithful, intinction and it's condemnation (probably also connected with the administration of communion in the hand or mouth).

(P.G., vol. col. 9ss).

The volume number is missing.

We do not deny that lay people had permission to touch the Sacred Species on occasion – in certain particular cases - or even in some particular Churches for a short period of time. But we deny that this, had been the practice in the Church in both East and West for a thousand years....

The author denies this against the consensus of the liturgists and the amount of sources to the contrary.

When St. Thomas (Summa Theologica,III,q.82,a 3)...

I am repeating myself, but the question St. Thomas addresses, as so many others before: “Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?” One might use this to criticize the practise of layity spending communion, but it has not much to do with the spending communion in the hand or not, even though the Aquinate describes the fittingness of consecrated hands to touch consecrated vessels and species.

Now this rule has never been abrogated: in the New Roman Missal, article 117, you read that the communicant tenens patenam sub ore, sacramentum accipit (holding the paten under the mouth receives the Sacrament).

While this is true, an Indult was granted for basically every diocese (see for example AAS 1969 547sqq)


Ergo: While it had been very wise to show the great care the Church showed towards the Blessed Sacrament, the always increasing devotion and love which lead to such a pious custom of Communion, one ridicules the very same by stating things no liturgist has ever said before and cannot be proven by fact.