Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

Communion in the hand: A Condemned Practice


Communion in the hand: A Condemned Practice

Why is that during his October 1995 visit to America, Pope john Paul II refused to give communion in the hand on several occasions when the peolple came up to receive with their hands out? The answer is because he knows its wrong, and he has a horrid distaste for it.

It is the teaching and ordinance of the Church that only the consecrated hands of a duly ordained priest may touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. This teachings is beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, where the he states: “…Because out of reverence towards this sacrtaments, 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.”

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was first started in Holland in 1969 against the wishes and mandate of the “Holy Father Pope Paul VI. This practice was introduced by the Church’s adversaries in order tro take awasys from us the knowledge of Christ’s divinity. Little do Catholics know that Communion in the hand is being carried on today in violation of the ecclesiastical prohibition against it that has existed in the Church for centuries. We refer here to the Council of Rousen (650 A.D.) where the Communion in the hand was formally condemned as sacrilegious some years after the heretical Arians had introduced this into the Church as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine.

Unfortunately, it has served to expressed the same today, ands has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is now rampant throughout the Church. For the Eucharist is the very heart of the Church and the center of all Christian worship. Yes, it is very the heart of Jesus Christ in person and the dwelling within His place (the tabernacle). It is sacred. Which is why it is called a sacrament, and must be approached with reverence and respect.

The faithful would do well to consider the conduct of Moses when he approached burning bush in the mount. The Lord ordered him to put off his sandals because he was on holy ground. And “Moses hid face: for the durst not look at God.” (Exodus 3:6) And to think that this was only a manifestation of God’s presence, not an actual, physical presence.

With how much greater reverence must we approach the altar where the Creator Himself dwells day and night in full Body annd Spirit? Shall we moch Him and do a little dance for Him (guitar mass) and then stick out dirty hands out and try to make the Lord of Hosts our pet wafer? God forbid?

COMMUNION IN THE HAND caters to human pride and warps our concepcion of Jesus Christ. It serves no other purpose than to nourish disbelief and disregard for God in the Eucharist. It promotes impurity of thought and action, and fosters the general mentality of transgressing into forbidden realms (touching that which we ought not) also calls to mind the transgression of Eve when she rose up in her pride and ate the forbidden fruit.

However, the autor of both is one and the same, the devil, who is now given great strength to work among us in the Church through this practice, and through the charismatic movement. It has been his plan to get the children of God to ridicule and disregard the authority of Jesus Christ, so they’ll regard Him as the Creator and divine Monarch to whom the entire must be subject.

And to think that during the Mass this Lord of Hosts comes down from Heaven and encapsulates Himself as a helpless victim of love in a tiny host, trusting that His representative (the preist) will guard and protect His Majesty from any defilement. Therefore a sacred trust is greatly violated when the clergy hand Jesus Christ over to the world to be carried away and mocked, so that He is sometimes even found crumbled under the pews, or in the holy water fonts.

Thanks to the Communion in the hand, the Satanist are now given access to come into the Church and take the host, so that thewy bring it back to their covens where it is abused and mocked in the ritualistic Black Mass to satan. This and much more are the horrid fruits of disobedience – the fruits of casting aside apostolic tradition and adopting the facts of the world.

The bottom line here is that Communion in the hand is illegal. For no pope, including the present one, has ever abrogated the prohibition against it in a formal manner. It has simply become a common law practice among the faithful, in the same way that we have common-law marriages today (living in sin). Our religious practice has become very cheap and casual to suit the modes of our illicit lifestyle today.

The faithful should always be on guard against approaching the Blessed Sacrament in a casual or nonchalant manner. Let themn consider the warning of St. paul in scripture, where he says:

“Therefore whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of Lord… For he that eath and drinketh unworthy, eateth and drinkteth judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” (that is, not acknowledging or realizing what he is receiving) – 1st Cor. 11:27.28

When we make a fad or a meal out of daily Communion, we defame the divinity, and subject ourselves to eternal judgement. It is the duty of the priests to protect their flocks from this defilement, and to foster in them the proper conduct and perception toward the Blessed Sacrament. However, this can never be done unless they first use their rank responsibility, and stop Communion in the hand.

The clergy would do well to reflect on the great dignity of their vocation, and on the urgency that they cast it aside or permit lay people to assume the duties or dignitites of the piest. Let them reflect on the word of the Holy Spirit, where it states in scripture:

“Because being ministers of His kingdom, you may have not judged rightly, nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the will of God. Horribly and speedily will He appear to you; for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule.: (Wis 6:5,6)


Did you know that Communion in the hand, which was practiced in the early Protestants in the 10th century, was re-introduced by Protestants in the 16th century as a blatant contempt of our disbelief in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated host (the host is only ordinary bread, therefore, anybody can handle it) and in our sacraments of holy orders or priesthood (the preist is just an ordinary man not given spiritual and sacramental power though ordination)? This practice, which was a reestablished in the Church through deceit, is, sadly now prevalent among Catholic.

Did you know that the practice of communion in the hand at one time or another has been condemned by various Church Councils in favor of Communion on the tongue to foster greater reverence as a safeguard against desecration of the host? – The Council of Saragossa (380 AD), The Synod of Rouen (65), The Sixth Ecumental Council, at Constantinople (680-681), The Council of Constaniple in 695 A.D., The Council of Trent in 1545.

Pope Paul VI warned in Memoriale Domini issued May 28, 1969 “(Communion in the hand) could lead to irreverence, profamation and the adulteration of correct doctrine. This method (on the tongue) must be retained.”

Even our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II speaks against Communion in the hands.

--“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own handsa is sa priviloege of the ordained.”
(Dominicae Cenae, 11)

--“I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this ..here, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisterts, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed…Isay this to you as your bishop.”
(Sermon, March 1, 1989, SS Nome Di Maria Church)

--“There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it… neither will I recommend it!” Nov. 1980, Germany (101 Times, Vol 4, No. 2, 1992)

Did you know that Communion in the hand is a misnomer. When you receive Communion in the hand you became unauthorized “eucharistic minister.” The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the host t placer the host on one’s hand is not really giving him Holy Communion but just “passing” the host. When the recipient take it to his mouth , he is in effect giving himself Holy Communion and thus, becomes an authorized “eucharistic minister” (extraordinary minister) of Communion.

Some of the “excuses” of those promoting Communion in the hand.

--Jesus handed the bread to the Apostles to “take and eat”.
Assuming that the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper (the Bible is not clear on this), we must not forget that they had just been consecrated as bishops, and were given the power to consecrated the host (bread). So, they couldn’t touch the bread?

--It was practiced in the Early Church.
It is true. At the time Christians were being persecuted and no real Councils could be held, but in the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D., Communion in the hand was condemned as an abuse. Also, as eucharisti doctrines are developed and eucharistic abuses increased (using the sacred host for satanic rites, for example) this practice needs to be changed. In further answer to this Pope Pius XII warned that “the desire to restored everything indiscriminately to **** ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy” (Mediator Dei). Bringing something back first century practices would be for example, to exclude sculptors, painters, actors, eunuchs from Baptism or baptized babies would be given Holy Communion under the form of wine.

--The tongue is not holier than the hand.
The Church has taught us to follow established practice. For instance, when we baptize, we pour water on one’s head. If it is true that the one part of the body is as holy as any other, why don’t we baptize a person by pouring water n his foot instead?

--It is the only time we can “touch” Jesus.
For what? To possess ang control God? Often something is placed in our hands as a sign of ownership and control. For instance, the consummation of the purchase of a new home or automobile is in the handling over the keys. But touching Jesus with our unconsecrated, soiled, and uncleaned hands is a grave matter.

Did you know that 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 (on the tongue). To receive in the hand is only an “indult”, a temporary favor granted by the holy See to bishops to permit them to do something not otherwise allowed. 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, that is, on the tongue: Thus from the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal.

The result of Communion in the hand has caused a major crisis in the Catholic Church. The New York Times reported that when Catholics were asked, in a Times-CBS news poll taken in June, 1994, what best describes their belief about what happens to the bread and wine at Mass, 70% between the ages of 18-44 and 58% of 45-64 chose the answer that the bread and wine are “symbolic reminders of Christ” over the answer that they are “changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.” Contrary to what the Church officially teaches.

What made Mother Theresa the saddest?
When an American priest asked her what she think was the worst problem in the world today, Mother Theresa 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, abortion, and so on, but without pausing a second said “Wherever I go whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching the peple receive communion in the hand.”

How right she is. We now treat the Body of Christ, the Blessed Sacrament, so casually we hand it around as if it is some everyday ordinary commodity.

Dr. Dietrich vou Hildebrand noted that “there can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend toward desacralization in the church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular…there is no reason for receiving Communion in the hand; only an immanent (inherent) spirit of paltry familiarity with our Lord.”

Why receiving Jesus on the tongue is needed and best:
· It emphasizes the uniqueness of this Holy Food as compared with ordinary food.
· It emphasizes the uniqueness of the ordained priest touching the Sacred Species.
· It emphasizes the presence of Christ who is feeding His flock and fosters humility.
· It gives us strong sense of identification with past Catholics and Saints who have received on the tongue from time immemorial.
· It minimizes the danger of the Host or its fragments being dropped or ignored, reducing sacrileges and abuses.
· It fosters a sense of unity in the Liturgy.
· It reaffirms the fact thet Holy Orders is a sacrament that ordains a man to the priesthood.
· It express complete obedience to the Church.

If you still persists in receiving communion in the hand after knowing the truth, please reflect on the following:

“A man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.”
--Cardinal Ratzinger

“…In normal condition to ignore the liturgical directivesa can be interpreted as a lack of respect towards the Eucharist, dictated perhaps by individualism or by an absence of a critical sense concerning current opinions, or by a certain lack of a spirit of faith.”
--Pope john Paul II

By taking communion in your hand, you could be an unwitting participant in someone’s diabolical scheme to perpetuate the desecration of the body of Christ. Receiving communion on the tongue is the traditional, universal, and more reverent way.


Today’s Catholic who receive Holy Communion in their hands have the idea that in doing so they are obeying the directives of the last Ecumenical Council and that those who receive the Holy Communion on their tongue are somehow disobeying this same Council. In fact, the contrary is true. First, it must be remembered that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church. And Holy Communion in the hand is an exception to that law. Holy Communion in the hand is not mentioned in any single document of the Second Vatican Council, nor was it mentioned during any of the debates during the council. So where did holy Communion in the hand come from? After Vatican II, some ecumenically minded priests in Holland started giving Holy Communion in the hand. However, the laity were outraged, and it was the indignation of large numbers of the faithful which propmpted Pope Pius VI to take some action. He polled the bishops of the world on this issue and they voted overwhelmingly to retain the traditional practice on the tongue. And it must be noted that at this time, the abuse was limited to a few European countries. It had not yet started in the United States.

Then the Pope officially announced the May 28, 1969 instruction, Memoriale Domine.
1. The bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against Holy Communion in the hand.
2. “This manner of distributing Holy Communion in the hand (that is the priest placing the Sacred Host on the tongue of the communicants) must be observed.”
3. Holy Communion on the tongue in no way detracts (takes away) from the dignity of the communicants.
4. There was a warning that “any innovation could lead to irreverence and profanation of the Holy Eucharist, as well as a gradual erosion of the Catholic Faith.” The document further states “the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long held manner of administering Holy Communion to the Faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See, therefore, strongly urges bishops, priests, and the people, to observe zealously this law.

However, in Holland this arbitrary act of defiance of legitimate authority continued. They figured that if they ignored Memoriale Domine and be defied the Church Authority, this rebellion would be tolerated. In a compromise on May 29, 1969, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship granted only a limited permission where the practice already existed, namely: Holland, France, Germany, and Belgium. The permission was only to be toleration of the abuse where it had been obstinately established by 1969.

This permission furthermore was only supposed to be allowed under seven strict conditions. And it was only given after a reminder that Holy Communion on the tongue must remain traditional manner of every occasion of scandal or loss of belief in the Holy Eucharist must be avoided. Second, that all irreverence to the Holy Eucharist must be avoided.

You might also ask, “What are the dangers of receiving”? since the advent of Holy Communion in the hand, it might seem as though there has bneen a major loss of faith in the Presence. In his apostolic letter Dominican Coenae on February 24, 1984, Pope John Paul II stated, regarding the wide-spread abuse of this practice, “That cases of deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharist Species have been reported. “Furthermore in a report entitled, Should Holy Communion in the Hand be Rescinded the following was stated, “Sacred Hosts have been found in missalettes, on pews, under pews, in church vestibules and parking lots. They have also been placed in pockets and photo albums. Even more shocking, Consecrated Hosts are used in the worshiping of Satan in the terrible “black mass”! Moreover, The Council of Trent states that, “ Jesus is present whole and entire in each particle of the Sacred Host and in each particle of the Sacred Host and in each drop of the Precious Hood after Consecration. Sadly, Holy Communion in the hand invariably leads to fragments of the Sacred Host being dropped down to the floor so that Our Lord is trodden under foot.

The Constitution on the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council reminds us all that Jesus the Lord is truly present to highest degree of His Very Being in this Greatest of All Sacraments. We witness with profound sadenss the horrifying consequences of the desecration of the Holy Eucharist that goes on and out Desecration of the Holy Eucharist is and always has been considered an abomination. The Code of Canon Law rightly maintains the pain of excommunication in cases of intentional desecration (Canon Code 1367) One is lead by pure logic to conclude that Holy Communion in the hand is absolutely inadmissible.

Even if only done through negligence, it is still a sign of sacrilege. In order to safeguard the Sacred Host, the only moral and reverent way to receive Holy Communion is on the tongue, with a paten to be held under the chin, and as specified by the directives of Pope Paul VI!

The bottom line is that receiving Holy Communion in the hand is illegal. For no pope, including the present only, has ever abrogated the prohibition against it in a formal manner. It has simply become a common law practice among the faithful in the same way that we have common law practice among the faithful in the same wayt that we have common law-marriages today (living in sin).

Lastly, in a suprising interview, Mother Theresaof Calcutta was asked what she considred to be the worst thing happening in the world today. They obviously expected het to perhaps say abortion or famine and so n. She answered, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makesz mne the saddest is watching people receive Holy Communion in the Hand.


1. It is lawful to keep the Blessed Sacraments at Home?
No, to keep the Blessed Sacrament at home is forbidden. The new Code of Canon Law 935 states that it is not lawful for anyone to keep the Blessed Sacrament in personal custody or to carry it around. Some say they have permission of a priest- no priest can grant this permission!
2. Wasn’t Holy Communion in the hand practiced in the early Church?
Only men were allowed to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Women had to cover their hands with a cloth called a “dominical”. This practiced of Holy Communion in the hans was ten condemned as an abuse at the Synod of Rouen at 650, as a safeguard against sacrilege.
3. Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas teach that only a priest should touch the Sacred Host?
Yes. St. Thomas, the great Doctor of the Church taught that only consecrated hands should touch the Sacred Host.
4. Didn’t the Protestants introduced Holy Communion in the hand to show that Jesus was not present in the Eucharist?
Yes. In the 16th century, Martin Luther (the renegade Catholic priest who started the protestant revolt) reintroduced the practice to manifest belief that there is no such thing as Transbustiation (changing of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ). If we truly love Our Divine Lord, we will not allow Our Sacred Trust to be violated any longer.

We would like to encourage you to do all in your power to stop Holy Communion in the hand by petitioning our writing to the pope, bishops, and priests in your parish.


His Holiness Pope John Paul II: 000120 Vatican City, Europe
Bishop K. Weigland 2110 Broadway, Sacramento, Ca., 9518-2541



  • Too much detailed rituals destroys the Way. Does God even care that you eat the host with your hand or the priest's hand?

    Pure superstition.
  • SpartanSpartan PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    This is why I'm glad to be a Lutheran.

    Ridiculous. Especially when "take" and "gave" indicates that the Jesus did not feed his disciples with his hands.
  • This belief of behemuth101 is so grossly wrong and so fanatically close-minded that it further exposes the follies some doctrines of Vatican imperialism.

    This is one of proof of how Roman imperialism and Greek philosophy entered the pure Christian doctrines of the primitive Christian Churches and defiled the same into what is now the corrupt traiditions, customs, and practices of the Roman Church and the Papal system.

    This is an absolute and total repudiation and errorneous contradiction of what the Holy Bible really teaches.

    Such evil teachings should never be considered, let alone defended.
  • ahhh...symbolic cannibalism...
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    uy! Baudrillard again!
  • haay...
    Why is that during his October 1995 visit to America, Pope john Paul II refused to give communion in the hand on several occasions when the peolple came up to receive with their hands out? The answer is because he knows its wrong, and he has a horrid distaste for it.

    actually, the answer is that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, has the choice whether or not to implement it in his diocese, and has chosen not to. don't pretend to know what goes on in the mind and heart of another person.
    This teachings is beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, where the he states: “…Because out of reverence towards this sacrtaments, 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.”

    then doesn't it also follow that a person's tongue must also be consecrated in order to receive the sacrament? so why don't we object to receiving Communion through the tongue as well?
    We refer here to the Council of Rousen (650 A.D.) where the Communion in the hand was formally condemned as sacrilegious some years after the heretical Arians had introduced this into the Church as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine.

    Historical Reference for Receiving Communion with Hands:

    Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: "Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?" (Catechetical Lectures 23:22).

    so, no, it was not original to Arians.

    and interestingly (and expectedly) enough, there is no Council of Rousen. there IS, however, a Synod of Rouen in 650, which did nothing of the sort. furthermore, the Arian question was settled long before 650, so there would have been no need for a synod to tackle related issues more than 300 years after the fact.

    this is plain and simple falsification.
    COMMUNION IN THE HAND caters to human pride and warps our concepcion of Jesus Christ. It serves no other purpose than to nourish disbelief and disregard for God in the Eucharist. It promotes impurity of thought and action, and fosters the general mentality of transgressing into forbidden realms (touching that which we ought not) also calls to mind the transgression of Eve when she rose up in her pride and ate the forbidden fruit.

    this is an example of bad logic. if the faithful understand why they are permitted to receive Communion by the hand, then how does it warp their faith? and even if they simply practice it without question nor inquiry, then how, exactly, does it "foster the general mentality of transgressing into forbidden realms ?" This letter nowhere answers such questions, and i sincerely doubt it was meant to do so.

    this is just a start of how easily this "letter" can be broken down point for point.
  • oops...the title made me think this was about witchcraft and condemned magickes, yun pala...sheesh, pati ba naman ito ginagawang issue?

    otoh, wonder how many dogmas got their start from petty bs like this.
  • Originally posted by gekokujo
    oops...the title made me think this was about witchcraft and condemned magickes, yun pala...sheesh, pati ba naman ito ginagawang issue?

    otoh, wonder how many dogmas got their start from petty bs like this.

    you'd surpised at what you're going to discover :lol:
  • SpartanSpartan PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    I hate it when people start a thread and don't follow up on it. Drive-by ideology assult is what I think of it.
  • and they make us read such a lengthy article and there's no pay-off at the end.
  • Please see the URL: http://www.catholictradition.org/communion2.htm As for reference, please see below text.

    I'm only a concern Catholic citizen only telling the truth about what happen on the Holy Eucharist in this country. I just want to tell the truth. Only priests not ministers nor whomever hands should touch the Holy Eucharist.

    For those Catholic citizen, it is time to know that we are experiencing a deceitful practice in a Catholic tradition. It is up to all of you if you will be enlighten with this thread.

    The Significance and Practice of Communion in the Hand

    The Significance of Communion in the Hand

    The particular significance of the imposition of Communion in the hand is that it is the epitomization of the "Spirit of Vatican II", the spirit which pervades the "Conciliar Church" to which Archbishop Lefebvre has been ordered to submit. A careful study of the factual background to this innovation should provide any Catholic still capable of breaking free from his conditioning with the impetus necessary to take this salutary step. This would not make life easier; to recognize the truth incurs the obligation of acting upon it. Life is far less complicated for those who are happy to remain conditioned
    but, surely, no price can be too high for an individual to pay to regain his personal integrity.

    It will be proved in this study that the reception of Communion in the hand never formed part of the program of the papally-approved liturgical movement: it was not mentioned in any official document of Vatican II: it was introduced in the 16th century by the Protestant Reformers specifically to repudiate belief in the Catholic Priesthood and the Real Presence; it was re-introduced after Vatican II by rebel priests in Holland and has spread throughout the world from there; it is being imposed upon the faithful by techniques involving distortion of the truth, outright deceit, and even intimidation. And what will be shown concerning Communion in the hand could also be shown of so many other post-conciliar innovations which Archbishop Lefebvre correctly designates as unacceptable to Catholics:

    "In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in Catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
    "No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries." 2

    A Process of Deceit

    Apologists for the practice of Communion in the hand possess what they consider an unanswerable argument to justify the innovation, namely, that it was the practice in the early Church. Reduced to its simplest terms, their argument reads: "Because it is older it must be better." This argument is totally fallacious and has been most forcefully condemned by Pope Pius XII, as will be shown later. Those concerned to uphold the traditional practice should concentrate on exposing the fallacy of this argument and not be sidetracked into discussions of whether the practice of Communion in the hand was once universal, how long it lasted, how genuine the texts brought forward to prove that it was once the custom are, or even the reasons why it was abandoned in favour of Communion on the tongue for the laity.
    Traditionalists are sometimes accused of having a static concept of the Faith, of being opposed to any development. On the contrary, it is the Liberals who wish to ignore developments in liturgy and doctrine which have taken place under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The most effective answer to contemporary liturgical and doctrinal innovators is to be found in Newman's The Development of Christian Doctrine. In this book the great Cardinal shows how it was not only natural but inevitable that there should be development in every aspect of the Church's life. The first Christians still frequented the synagogues and, in many cases, observed Jewish dietary regulations. Centuries passed before the true nature of the Trinity and the Divine nature of Christ were fully clarified. Forms of worship used in times of persecution were clearly no longer adequate when the Christians emerged from the catacombs and were presented with great basilicas. As with other doctrines, without ever contradicting what had been previously believed, the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist became more and more apparent, and this was reflected in the liturgy. Lex orandi, lex credendi, the manner in which the Church worships will reflect what she believes. 3 Cardinal Newman correctly observed that "a developed doctrine which reverses the course of development which has preceded it, is no true development but a corruption; also that what is corrupt acts as an element of unhealthiness towards what is sound." 4 There could be no more accurate description of the nature and effect of the reversal of development which has occurred with the introduction of Communion in the hand.

    Furthermore, this particular innovation, together with most of the liturgical changes following Vatican II, cannot be reconciled with the belief that the Holy Ghost inhabits and guides the Church. If the arguments in favour of Communion in the hand, and the other liturgical changes are valid, then clearly the Holy Ghost has not been guiding the Church for well over a thousand years. He was evidently either absent or ignored until the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century made the very same changes being imposed by the neo-Protestants within the Church today. It will be proved below that, as the Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to reject belief in the Catholic priesthood and the Real Presence, the retention of Communion on the tongue had become an embarrassing obstacle to ecumenism since Vatican II. Those who are destroying the Roman Rite today are opposed to virtually every aspect of the manner used by Latin rite Catholics for celebrating Mass before the Council. If they are correct, then it is quite inconceivable that the Holy Ghost was leading the Popes of the past 1,000 years to permit and impose harmful forms of worship. And if the Holy Ghost has not been guiding the Church for over a millenium, then quite clearly ours is not the one true Church.

    Liberals might answer that what was adequate until the second half of this century is no longer adequate today, as we are now in the presence of 'modern man', of humanity 'come of age', of the 'adult Catholic'. In his book The Devastated Vineyard, Dietrich von Hildebrand shows convincingly that the so-called "modern man" is a myth, invented by the sociologists, that in his essential nature, in his basic needs, desires, and attitudes, contemporary man does not differ from his predecessors of past centuries. 5 Human nature does not change.

    The Practice of Communion in the Hand

    The key issue of the debate concerning the escalating imposition of Communion in the hand is not whether it was once widespread in the early Church, but whether it should be introduced in the present day. In order to simplify the debate, let it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that for some centuries it was considered acceptable for the priest to place the host in the hand of the communicant. There is, however, definite evidence that, in at least some regions, the laity were receiving Communion on the tongue by the end of the sixth century. 6 The Roman Ordo of the ninth century accepts Communion on the tongue as the normal practice. 7 The Synod of Rouen in the year 650 condemned the reception of Communion in the hand by the laity as an abuse. This indicates that the reception of Holy Communion upon the tongue must have already become the established practice. 8

    Scholars are not clear why the transition took place
    differing explanations are given and there is probably some truth in most of them. The precise reason is not important, however. What is important is that the change must have been made for good reason under the influence of the Holy Ghost. The change to unleavened bread is given as one reason; the fear of abuse is another; Fr. Jungmann cites "growing respect for the Eucharist" as the decisive reason. 9

    A study of patristic and early medieval sources reveals not only a continually heightened appreciation of the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ
    not simply to be received, but to be adored
    but of the nature of the Mass as a solemn Sacrifice, the prime purpose of which is the adoration of Almighty God. The essential sacrificial act required a validly ordained priest, wheaten bread, and wine. It was offered by the priest acting in the person of Christ. The laity had the awesome privilege of being present at the Sacrifice
    but the liturgy naturally and logically came to accentuate the primary role of the priest and the solemnity of the Sacrifice. A booklet of propaganda in favour of Communion in the hand, The Body of Christ, issued by the American Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, writes of this as if it were something to be condemned:

    "In the eighth and ninth centuries the laity were almost completely excluded from the celebration. They no longer took the offerings to the altar during Mass, but were required to do so beforehand; the singing was done by the schola only; the general intercessions disappeared; the faithful could no longer see what was happening on the altar because the priest was in front of the altar, now sometimes completely surrounded and completely hidden by the iconostasis; the canon was said quietly and everything took place in silence or in a language less understood by the people."

    This reads like a list of complaints made by a 16th century Protestant Reformer and, in most of the instances given, is a condemnation of the present liturgical practice of the Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholics. As an example of the shoddy scholarship in this pamphlet, and all the propaganda for Communion in the hand, it needs only to be pointed out that the very idea of the faithful needing to see "what was happening on the altar" would have been totally alien to the Christians of this time, as Fr. Charles Napier, Superior of the London Oratory, has pointed out. 10 Similarly, from the time that Christians first had churches, it was the almost invariable custom for Mass to be offered facing the East, and so the priest always stood before the altar with his back to the congregation. I have given sufficient evidence of this elsewhere and will not repeat it here. [See my pamphlets, The Tridentine Mass and The New Mass, available from The Remnant at $1 each.]

    Once the true nature of the Mass is grasped, once there is a true understanding of what takes place when a priest of God pronounces the awesome words of consecration, it is not hard to understand why the most solemn moments of the Sacrifice take place behind the Iconostasis in the Eastern Churches. It is, indeed, a matter for wonder that any priest dares to pronounce these words or that the laity dare to be present when he does. There is a passage in the ancient liturgy of St. James which expresses perfectly the attitude which sinful men should adopt in the presence of this mystery, an attitude epitomized perfectly by the manner in which Mass was celebrated by the close of the ninth century, but which is found totally deplorable by today's proponents of Communion in the hand. The passage reads:

    "Let all mortal flesh be silent, and stand with fear and trembling, and meditate nothing earthly within itself for the King of kings and Lord of lords, Christ our God, comes forward to be sacrificed, and to be given for food to the faithful; and the bands of Angels go before Him with every power and dominion, the many-eyed cherubim, and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces, and crying aloud the hymn, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia. "
    It was the consideration of all the reverence shown to the Blessed Sacrament, coupled with the magnificent and solemn grandeur of the ceremonies of Holy Mass, that drew from Frederick the Great that noble and magnanimous saying:
    "The Calvinists treat Almighty God as a servant; the Lutherans as an equal; the Catholics as a God." 11

    The two current methods of distributing Holy Communion can be seen as symbolizing two conflicting attitudes to the Mass
    those who consider it primarily as an awesome Sacrifice offered to Almighty God, with all possible solemnity and reverence; and those on the other hand who consider it the convivial gathering of a mutual self-admiration society. The present conflict can, in fact, be seen as a symbol of the struggle within the Church between those who see Christianity as the cult of God and those who consider it to be the cult of man.

    Dietrich von Hildebrand had noticed the direction the innovations were taking as early as 1966. Writing in the October issue of Triumph in that year, he noted:

    "The basic error of most of the innovations is to imagine that the new liturgy brings the holy sacrifice of the Mass nearer to the faithful, that shorn of its rituals the Mass now enters the substance of our lives. For the question is whether we better meet Christ in the Mass by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our workaday world. The innovators would replace holy intimacy with Christ by an unbecoming familiarity. The new liturgy actually threatens to frustrate the confrontation with Christ. It discourages reverence in the face of mystery, precludes awe, and all but extinguishes a sense of sacredness."

    The final sentence could have been written specifically to describe the effect of Communion in the hand!


    2) Declaration of November 21, 1974, available from The Remnant
    3) This principle is discussed in detail in my book, Cranmer's Godly Order, p. 57; and my pamphlet The Roman Rite Destroyed, pp. 20/21. Both are available from The Remnant.
    4) Development of Christian Doctrine, Ch. V, Sect. VI, 4.
    5) The Devastated Vineyard (Franciscan Herald Press), p. 41. This important work can be purchased from Roman Catholic Books, POB 255, Harrison, NY 10528.
    6) S. Greg: Dialog. iii, 3 (PL, lxxvii, 224).
    7) PL, lxxvii, 994.
    8) Some authorities place the Synod of Rouen in the mid-ninth century. Others speak of two Synods. It is the fact that Communion in the hand was condemned as an abuse which matters, not the exact date of the Synod.
    9) The Mass of the Roman Rite (London, 1959), p. 510.
    10) The Clergy Review, August 1972, p. 628.
    11) J. O'Brien, History of the Mass (New York, 1888), p. 381
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    your book?
    ...let me guess, cut and paste, yes?
  • SpartanSpartan PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Well it looks like behemuth101 decided to drive back around the block and have another go!

    I'm just skeptical of church leaders who are on the same level I am. Whose to say that their interpretation is correct? I will continue to take my bread in my hand because I believe that my hand is no more soiled with sin than theirs. I'm already on holy ground with my shoes. God hasn't struck me with lighting yet.
  • Behemuth101's words are utter folly! Sacrilege! Let him continue in the blindness of his doctrines. These teachings are not biblical, but imperial arrogations of the Papacy if which none should even be considered as rational.
  • did a bit more digging. found an enlightening article entitled "A Case for Communion on the Tongue" by: David L. Vise (Revision 2: November 4, 1995).

    i'm not sure if this link will work, but here goes =>http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://library.catholic.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?TemplateName=views.tmpl

    if not, just go to www.catholic.org and search for Synod of Rouen, the article should pop up on top of the list.

    anyways, it should be clear from the article that receiving the Eucharist with one's hand is NOT a condemned practice, but is a practice that can lead to a degredation of one's faith (Vise parallels it to what St. Paul cites as "lawful, but not profitable").
  • Why does the pagan catholic church, teaching her followers with such tradition in the first place, when we can accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior without eating anything?

    It's like a procedure my catholic-bros, and let alone our God's Holy Spirit to work on you as soon as you accept Him without repeating your traditional communion.

    Well indeed that such paganism teaching is unbiblical, and well distractful for all christian believers! ;)
  • /me finds nothing new here and decides to go to the next interesting thread
  • I honestly respect others religioins faith. I criticize only what happened to our Catholic tradition.
  • the criticism isn't the problem. the posts themselves are.

    the first one was poorly constructed and researched. the second one, albeit much better, was poorly referenced.

    i sense honesty in your most recent post, and i apologize if you felt i was attacking you or your cause. it's just that after seeing so many cut/paste posts concerning the Catholic faith, it gets tiresome to have to deal with them all the time. just look at the other reactions in this thread, and you'll see what i mean. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.