Changing how I receive communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter KimberlyAnn0218
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was told about Pilot by my Irish parish priest when I became an altar boy decades ago, I couldn’t actually find that online.😉

EMHCs in our parish go to a side table and sanitize their hands with germicidal cleanser before coming to the altar to receive communion. I believe this is diocese wide since H1N1 and SARS.
 
Just so everyone understands…
I’m not objecting to how things are done or suggesting that they should be done differently.

However - what my question(s) and our little conversation perhaps can do is suggest to people
a) Why some people feel it is better to receive on the tongue instead of (unwashed) hands
b) That those who DO receive in the hand hopefully consider what they are receiving and how and where they are receiving it. I fear that too few people really give much thought to this matter.

As I mentioned in another place…I’ve watched people come up carrying a baby and move their hand from the baby’s bum for the priest to place the host there. I know the intention is not bad, but it also demonstrates a lack of understanding.
In fact, it is my understanding that, if you are carrying a child, or otherwise do not have a free hand, you are suppose to receive on the tongue - not in the hand.

Again - not trying to argue or take a position…just expressing some thoughts for consideration.

Peace
James
 
I was told about Pilot by my Irish parish priest when I became an altar boy decades ago, I couldn’t actually find that online.😉
Sounds like one of those “simple explanations” that kids sometimes get from adults.

When I was little I asked my mom what “IHS” meant. She told me it meant, “I have suffered”. Of course the meaning is much more involved than that - but I just accepted her explanation for many years…
EMHCs in our parish go to a side table and sanitize their hands with germicidal cleanser before coming to the altar to receive communion. I believe this is diocese wide since H1N1 and SARS.
Ours do not do this - I do recall that for a while we did not receive under both species.

Peace
James
 
Something that has always struck me in this regard is the fact that the priest washes his hands before consecration and receiving/distributing Our Lord. We do not…and neither do the EMHC’s…hhmmm.

The Apostles all washed before receiving - that was a part of the meal.
I wonder if the Early Christians, gathering for the Lord’s supper, likewise washed before eating…
An interesting point thought me-thinks.

:hmmm:

Peace
James
That little bit of water poured over the priest’s hands during the Lavabo does very little to cleanse them. It is symbolic. A proper handwashing takes at least 15-20 seconds with some agent like soap and then a thorough rinse. At many churches nowadays you can see the EMHC’s cleaning their hands with an alcohol-based hand cleanser, which also is effective. I see this all the time at various parishes anymore.
 
  1. The priest washing his hands
    The ancient practice of receiving bread and wine and other gifts from the congregation necessitated the priest washing his hands before continuing with the liturgy, not only for sanitary reasons, but also out of reverence for the Eucharist. This action gained a spiritual significance even before the presentation of the gifts became simplified.
The rite and its meaning are found in the Apostolic Constitutions from the end of the fourth century: “let one of the sub-deacons bring water to wash the hands of the priests, which is a symbol of the purity of those souls that are devoted to God.” (Book VIII, XI) A fuller explanation of the rite is found in the mystagogical catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
[This is] not at all because of bodily defilement; it is not that; for we did not enter the church at first with defiled bodies. But the washing of hands is a symbol that you ought to be pure from all sinful and unlawful deeds; for since the hands are a symbol of action, by washing them, it is evident, we represent the purity and blamelessness of our conduct. Did you not hear the blessed David opening this very mystery, and saying, “I will wash my hands in innocence, and so will compass Your Altar, O Lord”? The washing of hands is therefore a symbol of immunity from sin. (Catechesis XXIII, 2)
The purpose of this rite is to impress upon the priest and congregation the need for “interior purification” (GIRM 76) for the proper celebration of these sacred mysteries. The rite is not to be omitted on the pretense that the priest’s hands simply are not dirty.
In the Ordinary Form, the priest says the following prayer quietly:
Lava me, Dómine, ab iniquitáte mea, et a peccáto meo munda me.

Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. (Ps. 51:2)
The Scripture used in the Ordinary Form differs from that which is used in the Extraordinary Form, Psalm 26:6-11, the psalm quoted by St. Cyril (and which is used in certain Eastern Rites). There is a different tone between Psalm 51:2 and Psalm 26:6. In the former, it is God Who washes: “Wash me, O Lord…” In the latter, it is the priest who washes: “I wash my hands…” While Psalm 26 is about recognizing the call to holiness and the importance of purity in exercising the priestly office, Psalm 51 is about admitting failure to live up to that holiness and purity. Psalm 26 contrasts the hands of the faithful priest with those of evildoers, “in whose hands are evil devices, and whose right hands are full of bribes.” (Ps. 26:10) The Extraordinary Form prayer does not imply that the priest is a faultless man who has no need of the mercy of God: the prayer ends by beseeching God, “Redeem me, and have mercy on me.” (Ps. 26:11)

The point of both prayers is that, just as the holy sacrifice about to be offered is pure and spotless, so too the priest and people offering that sacrifice should be holy and without blemish. Of course, this state of sanctity does not come from ourselves, but from God.​
  1. Receiving on the hand or on the tongue
    Christians in antiquity did (at least at times) receive Communion into their own hands. St. Cyril describes this, the Council of Trullo describes it, and other witnesses (like St. Ambrose and St. John Damascene) speak of it.
And as for whether our hands are more or less suited to receive our Lord than our tongues, the admonition of St. James should be kept in mind:
If we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Look at the ships also; though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs.

So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, but no human being can tame the tongue – a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. (James 3:3-10)​
 
Its taking me some time to do COTT at the OF as I would prefer to receive from a priest that way compared to a lay person. If I get in a line with a lay person, then I just receive in the hand as not all may know about COTT. I much like the chances I’ve gotten to go to OF parishes that utilize the Communion Rail and all receive kneeling & on the tongue as its less awkward for me that way. I also like going to EF Masses where the custom is kneeling at the rail and on the tongue only.
 
Missrose I’m sure ALL EMCHs know about COTT.

As an EMCH myself I give COTT many times on Sundays. Probably about 1 in 10 receive COTT, and I give to communion to about 150 people on average. So that’s about 15 people per Sunday.

I’m sure it’s not much different in your parish.
 
Just so everyone understands…
I’m not objecting to how things are done or suggesting that they should be done differently.

However - what my question(s) and our little conversation perhaps can do is suggest to people
a) Why some people feel it is better to receive on the tongue instead of (unwashed) hands
b) That those who DO receive in the hand hopefully consider what they are receiving and how and where they are receiving it. I fear that too few people really give much thought to this matter.

As I mentioned in another place…I’ve watched people come up carrying a baby and move their hand from the baby’s bum for the priest to place the host there. I know the intention is not bad, but it also demonstrates a lack of understanding.
In fact, it is my understanding that, if you are carrying a child, or otherwise do not have a free hand, you are suppose to receive on the tongue - not in the hand.

Again - not trying to argue or take a position…just expressing some thoughts for consideration.

Peace
James
Not arguement felt by me the OP 🙂
I didn’t mean to start a COTT vs CIH discussion. My feelings are simply based upon what I belive to be a movement by the holy Spirit. That may sound dumb, but over the past 1 1/2 years I have gotten better at listening to what that “gut feeling” is telling me or calling me to do. I feel no pressure from anyone externally.😉
 
Not arguement felt by me the OP 🙂
I didn’t mean to start a COTT vs CIH discussion. My feelings are simply based upon what I belive to be a movement by the holy Spirit. That may sound dumb, but over the past 1 1/2 years I have gotten better at listening to what that “gut feeling” is telling me or calling me to do. I feel no pressure from anyone externally.😉
It is good that you do not feel pressured. I hope that my post did not feel like pressure.

Don’t worry about the COTT v CITH issue. It seems that we like to talk and quibble about it…🤷

Peace
James
 
And there is changing from COTT to CITH. When I was confirmed and received into the Church two years ago, I began and continued receiving the Eucharist on the tongue for two years.

My choice for COTT were for several reasons, to include the fact that I sing in the choir, and I was able to keep singing with the hymnal book open in my two hands, until I bow prior to receiving COTT.

For several reasons, last month I began receiving CITH. One reason is that my parish follows the ordinary form, with preference being for CITH. I am just as content with receiving the Host in the hand, but I admit it is currently a challenge: I continue singing with the hymnal book open in my two hands, and I still have the subconscious reflex to take my reading glasses off before bowing prior to receiving CITH. It’s probably almost comical for those in the pews, watching me trying to figure out how to receive the Host in my left hand, as I wrestle with a hymmal book in one hand and reading glasses in the other hand.

I may have to generate a new definition for CITH: Communion In The Hymnal.
 
I continue singing with the hymnal book open in my two hands, and I still have the subconscious reflex to take my reading glasses off before bowing prior to receiving CITH. It’s probably almost comical for those in the pews, watching me trying to figure out how to receive the Host in my left hand, as I wrestle with a hymmal book in one hand and reading glasses in the other hand.

I may have to generate a new definition for CITH: Communion In The Hymnal.
Not very comical at all, Sir. 😦
 
And there is changing from COTT to CITH. When I was confirmed and received into the Church two years ago, I began and continued receiving the Eucharist on the tongue for two years.

My choice for COTT were for several reasons, to include the fact that I sing in the choir, and I was able to keep singing with the hymnal book open in my two hands, until I bow prior to receiving COTT.

For several reasons, last month I began receiving CITH. One reason is that my parish follows the ordinary form, with preference being for CITH. I am just as content with receiving the Host in the hand, but I admit it is currently a challenge: I continue singing with the hymnal book open in my two hands, and I still have the subconscious reflex to take my reading glasses off before bowing prior to receiving CITH. It’s probably almost comical for those in the pews, watching me trying to figure out how to receive the Host in my left hand, as I wrestle with a hymmal book in one hand and reading glasses in the other hand.

I may have to generate a new definition for CITH: Communion In The Hymnal.
Those who do not have their hands free are SUPPOSE to receive on the tongue…This was mentioned by someone in another thread on this subject. I do not remember the source.

Peace
James
 
But isn’t the priest in a way mirroring the actions of Pilot, but in a better and more complete way:

“Lord wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sins” is what he prays when he washes.

He’s not sanitizing his hands he is asking God to make him worthy to offer the sacrifice of the mass.
I am not sure about the Pilot thing. This is what I found. It appears it is more mirroring the Jewish leaders.

“Why does the Priest wash his hands during the Mass?” The washing is a ceremonial relic of the Jewish tradition present at the time of Jesus. At that time, the high priest washed his hands before making the sacrifice of killing an unblemished, spotless lamb in the Temple of Jerusalem on the day of Passover. So, too, celebrating Mass today, the priest prepares to offer up the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) to God the Father, so he ceremonially washes his hands to offer a spotless sacrifice."
saintjamesacademy.com/why.html

The priest then washes his hands as did the Jewish leaders before the ritual meal. This action has also taken on symbolic significance. The priest prays, “Lord wash away my iniquity, cleanse me from my sins.”
ourcatholicfaith.org/mass/eucharist.html

Does the priest have to wash his hands during the offertory?

Yes. The priest, after the offertory prayers over the bread and the wine mixed with water, washes his hands, saying, “Lord, wash away my iniquity and cleanse me of my sins” (no. 76). This gesture is a sign of the priest’ s desire for purity of heart as he offers the Sacrifice of the Mass
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0644.html
 
I apologize if offense was taken to my commentary, albeit with a flavor of humor and not with intentions of perceived sacrilege.

This thread is to discuss issues that arise, when one decides to change how they receive communion. Lest we judge others, let us be receptive in everyone’s right to change how we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, as long as the change is recognized by the Church.

As of last month, 100 percent of our choir is now receiving CITH. It will take me some time, because I am so focused on singing as good as possible for my parish. Our choir chooses to sing until each of us are ready to bow in front of the EMHC. With my free will, I have chosen a new way to receive the Host. It will take me time to adapt, while I continue to focus on singing for my parish, while the choir members walk towards the EMHC.

Let us all be patient, with those who choose to change how they receive communion.
 
Our choir receives last once the music stops. Therefore they can all file up to receive communion as they wish without anything in their hands.
 
Pilot - A person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft.

Pilate - Pontius fl. first century a.d… Roman prefect of Judea who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.

Many decades ago, I was a junior high student taking a test in English Literature on Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. I completed the test and took it up to the teacher, and proceeded to inform him that one of the questions contained an error. He offered me extra credit points if I could correctly point out an error. I pointed to a question regarding ‘Pilate’, and said “You spelled ‘Pilate’ wrong”, as he had the name of the Roman prefect spelled ‘Pilot’. A ‘Pilot’ is an an airplane operator, ‘Pilate’ is the correct name of the person in the test question.

I got my extra credit points. 😉

I could see one person making this same mistake, but the incorrect usage of a noun for an airplane operator being used as the name of a historical character being repeated in replies is puzzling. 😦

That’s all I have to say folks. Carry on…
 
Pilot - A person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft.

Pilate - Pontius fl. first century a.d… Roman prefect of Judea who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.

Many decades ago, I was a junior high student taking a test in English Literature on Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. I completed the test and took it up to the teacher, and proceeded to inform him that one of the questions contained an error. He offered me extra credit points if I could correctly point out an error. I pointed to a question regarding ‘Pilate’, and said “You spelled ‘Pilate’ wrong”, as he had the name of the Roman prefect spelled ‘Pilot’. A ‘Pilot’ is an an airplane operator, ‘Pilate’ is the correct name of the person in the test question.

I got my extra credit points. 😉

I could see one person making this same mistake, but the incorrect usage of a noun for an airplane operator being used as the name of a historical character being repeated in replies is puzzling. 😦

That’s all I have to say folks. Carry on…
Thank you for this. I never know whether to say anything or not. Proper spelling seems to have gone the way of the Dodo. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top