After receiving communion on the hand...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Canto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Ah yes, but the priests and bishops of today have made receiving in the hand the norm for America. 😉

I’d think that since the host is going in your mouth and then to your stomach, the hand is the least of worries for disrespect in this whole process. 🤷

I personally feel that if people want to receive on the tongue, the hand, whatever, it’s fine although I personally receive in the hand. But you can’t look down on another for the way that THEY receive Jesus, so long as it’s deemed acceptable by the church (as receiving in the hand has been.) I’d think Jesus would be less concerned by people receiving in the hand illicitly, than by people standing by and judging others for the way they receive him anyway. That just kind of seemed to be the whole point of his railings against the pharasees anyway…
 
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?
There is no parity between what is of choice externally and what happens of necessity with regard to actual eating. Additionally, in the old rite of baptism, the mouth is in fact consecrated to eat the Bread of Life as well.
 
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.
"Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests are not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else who is receiving Communion, not even a priest, may do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest assists at Mass (and is not [con]celebrating) and if he wishes to receive Holy Communion, he does not do so by his own hand: he receives on the tongue from another priest. The same is true of a bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself.

When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own “eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly."
 
Ah yes, but the priests and bishops of today have made receiving in the hand the norm for America. 😉

I’d think that since the host is going in your mouth and then to your stomach, the hand is the least of worries for disrespect in this whole process. 🤷

I personally feel that if people want to receive on the tongue, the hand, whatever, it’s fine although I personally receive in the hand. But you can’t look down on another for the way that THEY receive Jesus, so long as it’s deemed acceptable by the church (as receiving in the hand has been.) I’d think Jesus would be less concerned by people receiving in the hand illicitly, than by people standing by and judging others for the way they receive him anyway. That just kind of seemed to be the whole point of his railings against the pharasees anyway…
While many priests and bishops may be okay with communion in hand, not all are. If you would like to look to the Pope as an example, he does not promote this.

"It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of Communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. It was also illicit until very recently in the Vatican Basilica. And he has even refused to do it in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See.

The most remarkable example of this last is the time when the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d’Estaing approached the Pope for Holy Communion with hands outstretched. He ignored those hands and placed the Sacred Host into her (astonished) mouth. (Actually, she need not have been astonished; explicit instructions had been given that the Pope would not give Communion in the hand.) "

Mother Teresa said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

“Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch it. “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” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).”

"The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.

When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear."

We can summarize that the practice of Communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work. "
 
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.
According to your logic, maybe we can start receiving with our feet if our heart is ready for Jesus.
 
"Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests are not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else who is receiving Communion, not even a priest, may do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest assists at Mass (and is not [con]celebrating) and if he wishes to receive Holy Communion, he does not do so by his own hand: he receives on the tongue from another priest. The same is true of a bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself.

When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own “eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly."
Your post is in quotation marks, but I don’t know what you are quoting. Could you please provide the source and date for this quotation. On first reading the quote, I would say there are errors present. In fact, there are numerous places throughout the world where both clerics and laity have received permission from their bishop to receive the eucharist in the hand (in other words, to touch the eucharist). Now, many people may disagree with this position, including the author of this quote, and I do respect that, but the fact that laity in some areas do have permission to receive the host in the hand can’t be denied. I also think your statement that the modern practice of receiving the eucharist in the hand is merely the result of heresy and disobediance is speculation and rather simplistic. Also, considering the Lord’s promise that he would be with his Church always, I do not think it is permissable to think your implication that a spirit, other than that of the Holy Spirit, has had it’s will realized in this practice.
 
Your post is in quotation marks, but I don’t know what you are quoting. Could you please provide the source and date for this quotation. On first reading the quote, I would say there are errors present. In fact, there are numerous places throughout the world where both clerics and laity have received permission from their bishop to receive the eucharist in the hand (in other words, to touch the eucharist). Now, many people may disagree with this position, including the author of this quote, and I do respect that, but the fact that laity in some areas do have permission to receive the host in the hand can’t be denied.
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
 
Thank you for the prompt reply. The author provides some useful information which we should consider carefully, but in the end it is an opinion piece which offers one point of view. His opinion regarding communion in the hand is not binding on faithful Catholics or on Bishops and priests who have given permission for and regularly distribute communion in the hand. If and when my local Bishop declares that communion in the hand will not be offered in our diocese, I will comply. Until then, I do not feel I show disrespect to the Lord or to the sacrament by receiving in the hand. I also assert that those who receive the eucharist on the tongue show no disrespect either.
 
Mother Teresa said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”
. "
I was really surprised to see this erroneous quote surface again, given how many times it has been pointed out that she said no such thing.

Go to the official Missionaries of Charity website. There you will see that her own Order denies that she ever said this!
 
But today, March 18, we celebrate the feast of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, that great bishop of the late fourth century who is known for his instructions to the catechumens about to enter the Church. Part of his catechesis is his instructions on how to receive the Eucharist in the hand as we do today, making a throne with one hand to receive our Lord in the other.
 
Thank you for the prompt reply. The author provides some useful information which we should consider carefully, but in the end it is an opinion piece which offers one point of view. His opinion regarding communion in the hand is not binding on faithful Catholics or on Bishops and priests who have given permission for and regularly distribute communion in the hand. If and when my local Bishop declares that communion in the hand will not be offered in our diocese, I will comply. Until then, I do not feel I show disrespect to the Lord or to the sacrament by receiving in the hand. I also assert that those who receive the eucharist on the tongue show no disrespect either.
A perfect picture of the damages of Novus Ordo. I thank God every day that I don’t have to deal with modernist Catholics, like yourself, at my traditional mass. People should kneel and receive on the tongue, never laying hands upon the sacred Host. I pray that one day you, and the rest of the liberal Catholics, will recognize the irreverence of this mass and amend your ways.
 
A perfect picture of the damages of Novus Ordo. I thank God every day that I don’t have to deal with modernist Catholics, like yourself, at my traditional mass. People should kneel and receive on the tongue, never laying hands upon the sacred Host. I pray that one day you, and the rest of the liberal Catholics, will recognize the irreverence of this mass and amend your ways.
:rotfl::slapfight:
 
When I went through RCIA, they never said anything about checking your hand, so I never really thought to do this. But once I started to do some reading on my own, I switched to receiving on the tongue.
 
I receive in the hand and always check.

In doing it this way for over 30 years I have never seen a crumb or particle.

I can’t answer for any crumbs that fell out of my mouth when I received on the tongue. I suspect there were none and if there were that the paten caught them and the altar boy did not flick them off the paten as he moved from one person to the next.
 
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.
BOO-YAH BABY!! Only 6 posts to take the thread off topic form “do you check for crumbs” to “why COTT is better than CITH and why I’m better than you because I do the former and not the latter”.

This is so so old my friends.

Folks who want to receive COTT should be allowed to do it and those who favor CITH should respect and support them. Folks who want to receive CITH should be allowed to do it and those who favor COTT should respect and support them.

Both forms are allowed. Neither form is more holy or respectful. Both forms can be abused. It is still Jesus.

Maybe we could take the dozens of COTT vs CITH threads that rehash the same thing ad nauseum and roll them up into one big thread or heck, let’s make it into it’s own forum.
 
A perfect picture of the damages of Novus Ordo. I thank God every day that I don’t have to deal with modernist Catholics, like yourself, at my traditional mass. People should kneel and receive on the tongue, never laying hands upon the sacred Host. I pray that one day you, and the rest of the liberal Catholics, will recognize the irreverence of this mass and amend your ways.
Breathtaking, totally breathtaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top