A Lesson for Traditionalists on Communion in the hand

[OhMalley]

Where it is allowed, communion-in-hand is no better or worse than communion on tongue. If either one were superior to the other it’s clear that the Church would only allow that method.

It’s both amusing and sad to watch people ignore what the Church actually allows in favor of trying to “prove” that their personal choice is somehow “superior.”

 

[OhMalley]

Dear Elisabeth.

If you want to label yourself a Traditionalist. You should go and talk to a Priest.
You should ask him to explain to you the use of the sacrarium, the clasping of the fingers, the ablutions, the method for purifying places where the Blessed Sacrament drop.

Please if you receive in the hand you are not a traditionalist.

Paul

 

[I_Believe]

I receive the Sacred Body in the hand and I am NOT LIBERAL. Please do not label everyone who receives that way as such. It is very uncomfortable to receive the the host on the tongue for me for many reasons. I consider myself a traditionalist and not a liberal. It is not kind to think you are holier and better because you receive our Lord on the tongue.
Thank you

Hi Elizabeth, you are right, we should not be labeling folks we don’t know. And even if we do know them, we can’t read what they hold in their heart. Fair enough.

But this is not about being holier. This is about losing particles of the Host. Paten or no paten, the fact is, particles remain on your hand. We may not see them if they are miniscule, but even the smallest particle is precious. Where do these particles wind up ? They either fall to the ground, on our clothes, or if they remain on our hands, they wind up in the sewage the next time we wash our hands. No one can deny particles get lost when we handle them.

Do particles get lost if the priest is the only one to handle the Host ? Yes, of course some inevitably get lost. But very few. If we receive on the tongue, from the priest, we minimize this. By receiving COTT, we are doing everything humanly possible to protect the precious fragments. Should this be the priority ? It certainly should be. This is the Most Blessed Sacrament we are talking about.

Now, what reasons can we think of to continue receiving in the hand ? There are many. But every single one of them place our individual wants and concerns above the fact that receiving CITH increases the chance of lost particles. How can anyone who truly believes in the Real Presence do this with a clear conscience ? To do so is to deny that the particles are precious.

It is also to dismiss the fact that priest’s hands are consecrated for a reason. It also dismisses the fact that we received on the tongue for a very, very, long time. We must consider there was a reason for this as well.

So, knowing that fragments/particles of the Host do get lost and dropped more frequently with CITH, and deciding to receive CITH anyway, is indeed a very liberal decision.

We can take it even further. The conditions set forth by the indult allowing CITH are very specific. In far too many parishes, they have not been met.

But don’t take my word for it. Please read this document.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

It is from Rome. In it you will see that CITH was NOT reintroduced by Rome. You will also see why the Church deemed it best to receive on the tongue. You will see that the world’s Bishops did not want CITH. The practice was introduced in certain areas without approval from Rome.

Again, please read the document. And please know many in today’s Hierarchy do not approve of CITH.

 

[I_Believe]

This is what I don’t understand about these discusions; the altar breads I have received all over the world do not ‘leave a residue’.

There are no fragments, no crumbs, no residue.

I am a sacristan and occasionally I notice crumbs in the bottom of the plastic bags the altar-breads are delivered in, but that’s due to them being jogged about in transit.

You say there are no fragments because the edges are sealed, and then admit you have seen fragments.

Are you convinced that just because a fragment isn’t visible to the naked eye, it does not exist ? That would be like me denying there is a such thing as a human cell just because I can’t see it without a microscope.

Sorry friend, handling the Host twice doubles the chance of lost fragments. It doubles the chance of it being dropped. Receiving on the tongue is the best we can do to minimize loss of precious particles and dropped Hosts. To disagree would place one in a state of denial.

 

[I_Believe]

Where it is allowed, communion-in-hand is no better or worse than communion on tongue. If either one were superior to the other it’s clear that the Church would only allow that method.

It’s both amusing and sad to watch people ignore what the Church actually allows in favor of trying to “prove” that their personal choice is somehow “superior.”

And it’s sad to see someone place an indult over the primary concern, which in this case is lost fragments. Fragments that wind up in the sewers or on the ground.

Read this if you want to see what we base our preference on.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[I_Believe]

We were instructed in my parish(about 7 churches) to receive communion in the hand a couple of weeks ago because of swine flu. Also, the Blood has been taken away from the laity because of the same reason.

The handling of a Host twice doubles the chance of it being dropped or fragments being lost.

Better to not receive if one fears the flu. The Church only requires us to receive once a year anyway. A Spiritual Communion will suffice.

Reverence and concern for lost particles embraces Dogma.

 

[AJV]

You say there are no fragments because the edges are sealed, and then admit you have seen fragments.

Are you convinced that just because a fragment isn’t visible to the naked eye, it does not exist ? That would be like me denying there is a such thing as a human cell just because I can’t see it without a microscope.

Sorry friend, handling the Host twice doubles the chance of lost fragments. It doubles the chance of it being dropped. Receiving on the tongue is the best we can do to minimize loss of precious particles and dropped Hosts. To disagree would place one in a state of denial.

If a particle is not visible with the naked eye, then the Real Presence is considered to have ceased. This opinion can be widely found in pre-conciliar books.

Despite the sealed edges in the hosts, there are a few crumbs. I see them on the paten after the priest has finished distribution when I serve Mass.

 

[I_Believe]

If a particle is not visible with the naked eye, then the Real Presence is considered to have ceased. This opinion can be widely found in pre-conciliar books.

Despite the sealed edges in the hosts, there are a few crumbs. I see them on the paten after the priest has finished distribution when I serve Mass.

Hi AJV,
Opinion ? Fair enough. Got links to Church documents ?

Convince me. Seriously, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But that still does not diminish the fact that CITH increases the chance of dropped Hosts.

While I have you, do you know of any documents that support the decision of the Church to deem COTT the norm ? I’m having a tough time finding anything besides writings of Church Doctors and such. Surely there was some sort of decree or what have you that made it clear COTT was to be the norm ? I did find some mention in the Trent documents that only priests and deacons were to distribute the Blessed Sacrament.

Somewhere there has to be a document or two that explains in depth the Church’s decision to make COTT the norm. I would think certain Doctrine dogmas were considered.

What I’d give to be allowed to dig through the Vatican’s archives

TIA

 

[OhMalley]

And it’s sad to see someone place an indult over the primary concern, which in this case is lost fragments. Fragments that wind up in the sewers or on the ground.

Read this if you want to see what we base our preference on.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

So an official indult from the Church is somehow not as good as what you personally prefer? You are suggesting the Catholic Church allows something that allows (more) “fragments that wind up in the sewers or on the ground?” Do you honestly think you know better than the Catholic Church? Do you honestly believe the Church approves practices that are inferior to those you personally prefer?

 

[I_Believe]

So an official indult from the Church is somehow not as good as what you personally prefer? You are suggesting the Catholic Church allows something that allows (more) “fragments that wind up in the sewers or on the ground?” Do you honestly think you know better than the Catholic Church? Do you honestly believe the Church approves practices that are inferior to those you personally prefer?

Conditions. The indult specifies conditions. Conditions that if met, address the issue of careless and irreverent handling of Hosts. Have you read the entire thread ? Can you defend the liberty taken by some clergy to ignore the conditions of the indult ?

I can’t rant about clergy ignoring these conditions, but clergy don’t have to answer for ignoring them ?

Do you deny Hosts are dropped ? If not, do you deny that CITH increases the chance of them being dropped ?

The Church does not approve of inferior practices. That’s why the conditions are there. But the world is a big place. If no one complains about the fact that the conditions of the indult are not being met, then what is the use of the indult to start with ? How is Rome to know the conditions are not being met if no one speaks of it ?

 

[The_Rock]

Regretably in our Parrish we sometimes use a glass “bowl” to contain the hosts as they are consecrated. I abhor this practice but it does allow one to see quite clearly the particles left behind when emptied. Let me assure you there are more than “a few”. At least hundreds, if not thousands. We use the same circular wafer-type hosts made by the good sisters in the monastery that 99% of the parishes use. The glass bowl makes it clear that some particles will be lost no matter what precautions are used. I have received in the hand a few times in the last 15 years. Is there a correct method to inconspiculously and reverently inspect your hands and consume the particles? I will continue to receive on the tongue however. Is there a danger of scrupilosity detracting from prayer? I find I am more distracted thinking about the particles if I receive in the hand, but I know neither method is perfect. I was an alter boy before CITH and the Paten proved particles are still lost with COTT.

 

[bear06]

Hi AJV,
Opinion ? Fair enough. Got links to Church documents ?

TIA

I’m not a fan of CITH but AJV is right.

From the Summa:

An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.

Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

 

[pipper]

Regretably in our Parrish we sometimes use a glass “bowl” to contain the hosts as they are consecrated. I abhor this practice but it does allow one to see quite clearly the particles left behind when emptied. Let me assure you there are more than “a few”. At least hundreds, if not thousands. We use the same circular wafer-type hosts made by the good sisters in the monastery that 99% of the parishes use. The glass bowl makes it clear that some particles will be lost no matter what precautions are used. I have received in the hand a few times in the last 15 years. Is there a correct method to inconspiculously and reverently inspect your hands and consume the particles? I will continue to receive on the tongue however. Is there a danger of scrupilosity detracting from prayer? I find I am more distracted thinking about the particles if I receive in the hand, but I know neither method is perfect. I was an alter boy before CITH and the Paten proved particles are still lost with COTT.

Back in days gone by I was an Episcopalian, even though I requested and recieved Holy Communion on the tounge, most did not.

I like their way better than our own, when they recieve the Host they hold their hands in the form of a cross, as we do. But they put it straight into their mouths, while Catholics grasp the host between their fingers and pop it into their mouths.

BTW, I still recieve Our Lord on the toungue and I also have Parkinson’s disease, It would be sacriligous to drop the body of the Lord due to my shaking.

 

[I_Believe]

Regretably in our Parrish we sometimes use a glass “bowl” to contain the hosts as they are consecrated. I abhor this practice but it does allow one to see quite clearly the particles left behind when emptied. Let me assure you there are more than “a few”. At least hundreds, if not thousands. We use the same circular wafer-type hosts made by the good sisters in the monastery that 99% of the parishes use. The glass bowl makes it clear that some particles will be lost no matter what precautions are used. I have received in the hand a few times in the last 15 years. Is there a correct method to inconspiculously and reverently inspect your hands and consume the particles? I will continue to receive on the tongue however. Is there a danger of scrupilosity detracting from prayer? I find I am more distracted thinking about the particles if I receive in the hand, but I know neither method is perfect. I was an alter boy before CITH and the Paten proved particles are still lost with COTT.

Hi Rock, as far as scruples, I don’t think worrying about the lost particles makes one scrupulous. Now, if one receives on the tongue, and then rushes to their vehicle after Mass and drinks a half gallon of water to make sure the entire Host went down, then yes, that would be scrupulous.

You bring up a good point. The Paten is used for a reason, not just in case of a dropped Host, but because the Hosts are brittle and fragile and small particles do indeed fall off the Hosts. Same with the Altar Rail cloth.

It’s baffling folks don’t see this as serious stuff, even after it’s explained to them.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[I_Believe]

I’m not a fan of CITH but AJV is right.

From the Summa:

Ok, thanks. What is the Summa though ?

 

[bear06]

Ok, thanks. What is the Summa though ?

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica - this part in particular:

newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm

 

[pipper]

Ok, thanks. What is the Summa though ?

The Summa Theologica was written by Saint Thomas Aquina. One of hte Doctors of the Church.

 

[I_Believe]

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica - this part in particular:

newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm

The Summa Theologica was written by Saint Thomas Aquina. One of hte Doctors of the Church.

Ok, that’s the first work that came to mind. I have not read it. That’s a long read if it’s what I’m thinking of.

I’ll take a look.

 

[I_Believe]

Ok, so if a particle, or drop, is so small it can’t be seen, the Body and Blood does not remain. I think it’s safe to say the Angelic Doctor’s opinion will hold more weight than mine.

That still leaves the particles and drops that can be seen.

 

[paperwight]

You say there are no fragments because the edges are sealed, and then admit you have seen fragments.

Are you convinced that just because a fragment isn’t visible to the naked eye, it does not exist ? That would be like me denying there is a such thing as a human cell just because I can’t see it without a microscope.
.

Let me explain this again (although I’d have thought it was clear enough the first time).

There are sometimes fragments and crumbs in the bags the altar breads are delivered in, because they come by post and presumably the parcel gets knocked about by the mail service or in the van. If the sacristan just tips the bag into the ciborium, rather than taking the time to lift out a few altar-breads at a time, then these crumbs might end up in the bowl. These are then not given as Holy Communion, because they are so small, or because they drop to the bottom of the bowl, but they are amalgamated with the other unused Hosts into the main ciborium at the end of Holy Communion and placed in the Tabernacle, or consumed there and then by the priest.

Saying that there are sometimes crumbs or fragments in the plastic bags the altar-breads are delivered in is a world away from saying there’s the danger of fragments actually dropping off a Host when given gently into the hand or mouth of a communicant.

And I think the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas has shown that people are being scrupulous when they worry about invisible particles dropping to the floor or going down the drain. The particles might be - without a microscope who can say- but the Church treaches that they no longer contain the Real Presence.