C
Canto
Guest
Even a fragment of the host is still Jesus. So for those who use the indult (even if not all the time), do you check for fragments on your hand or have you never really thought about it? Just curious.
- Status
M
Monica4316
Guest
I’ve received Communion on the hand, but I don’t really feel comfortable with that anymore and want to only receive on the tongue…
S
samovila
Guest
As a child in the 80s I was taught by the nuns preparing us for first communion to receive in the hand. I continued that for many years until in my 20s it just didn’t feel right and I started to receive on my tongue and never went back to receiving in my hand. For all those years that I received in my hand I never though to check for fragments. The hosts are compact and not crumbly. I don’t know how a fragment of the host could even be left in my hand. So I voted that I never really thought about it because I didn’t even think it was possible. Maybe this differs from parish to parish with different types of hosts used?
D
dekutrash
Guest
I only recieve it in hand. On the tongue is just wierd to me.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Parishes around her use hosts that are not crumbly.
W
w2bp88
Guest
If you really believe that it is Jesus, why would you even dream of receiving on the hand? It is so disrespectful. Think about it, really.
M
Mel_Stones
Guest
I receive in the hand when serving as EMHC (because my priest distributes Eucharist to the EMsHC at the wrong time [before he receives]) and I always check for fragments. I also check carefully for fragments after I serve as Extraordinary Host Minister - I have been know to lick my fingers/palm AFTER I’ve finished serving.
But whenever possible, I receive OTT which takes care of this problem.
But whenever possible, I receive OTT which takes care of this problem.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Back when I was catholic, I’d check for crumbs.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
It was good enough for the apostles.
F
frenchbeatle
Guest
I don’t check for fragments. I used to, but the Hosts I see now are not crumbly, they are thick enough that there wouldn’t be any crumbs. Other churches have used thinner Hosts, and then I checked my hands. If I found crumbs, I would lick them off.
W
w2bp88
Guest
"But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.It was good enough for the apostles.
But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.” "
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
If you were at the level of the apostles, you might have an argument. Until then, it’s disrespectful.
I
invocation
Guest
I fail to see how holding it in my hand is any more “disrespectful” than munching away on it seconds later.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Matthew 26:26 (Emphasis mine.)
If you consider the Gospels to be historically accurate, then it is obvious that Jesus gave the bread to those present, then they ate it. Furthermore, if he dipped the bread into wine, there is no need to pass the cup around, as he apparently did.
C
Canto
Guest
Even if a host may seem compact enough and not crumbly, I’ve noticed that sometimes there is still one or two little, hard to see (for me) specks.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I respectfully disagree that it is disrespctful to receive the eucharist in the hand. I have thought about it and find it no more disrespectful than receiving on the tongue. I do check for crumbs when I receive on the hand.
C
CatholicZ09
Guest
I receive on the hand, but I check sometimes to see if there’s crumbs. Usually, since the hosts are so compact, they don’t really leave crumbs. It they do, I just pick them up and eat them.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
You need to think about it. Christ has deigned to be received through our eating and drinking Him. He knows what the normal human methods of eating bread and drinking wine are. When He was first received at the Last Supper, the apostles received His body under the form of breaking off pieces of bread by hand (unless you somehow believe they knelt and received a wafer on the tongue, which would be a curious detail for the evangelists to leave out). How is being briefly, reverently handled by our hands any more of an indignity than being chewed and swallowed and subjected to the digestive process?
W
w2bp88
Guest
There is a big difference. Those were apostles and they were held to the level of what we would consider priests and bishops today. A lay person shouldn’t be touching the Eucharist, only a priest or higher official should.
I also don’t think it should be chewed. You should let it dissolve in your mouth, not chomp away at it.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
The apostles were still sinful men, and their hands were no more worthy to touch the consecrated bread than ours are. Your answer smacks of exaggerated clericalism.
As to the rest, one can “chew” normally without “chomping away”, so you’re being rather tendentious.
But regardless, leave aside “chewing”, please deal with my main point: why is it any less an affront to Christ to subject him to our saliva and digestive processes than our hands?
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I’m afraid I don’t understand why the hand is less holy than the tongue. It seems to me that the point is not whether one receives the eucharist on one’s tongue or in one’s hand, but whether one is actually willing to receive the Lord in one’s heart. The rest is just so much sand.
- Status