Communion By The Hand

[ProVobis]

BUT, never should one say the Catholic receiving COTT is more reverent than the Catholic receiving CITH. To do otherwise is very dangerous.

It is more than reverent in those countries which haven’t approved CITH. COTT is obedience there.

CITH has not been universally approved, only allowed by a 2/3 bishop’s vote for that country and subject to restrictions mentioned by a couple of posters. To claim otherwise borders on arrogance and/or defiance.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It is more than reverent in those countries which haven’t approved CITH. COTT is obedience there.

CITH has not been universally approved, only allowed by a 2/3 bishop’s vote for that country and subject to restrictions mentioned by a couple of posters. To claim otherwise borders on arrogance and/or defiance.

I am confused…it’s more reverent in countries that don’t have CITH…how do you know this? Where it is allowed…it is obedience just as much as COTT…

I am not following your logic…

 

[PatriceA]

It is more than reverent in those countries which haven’t approved CITH. COTT is obedience there.

CITH has not been universally approved, only allowed by a 2/3 bishop’s vote for that country and subject to restrictions mentioned by a couple of posters. To claim otherwise borders on arrogance and/or defiance.

Nobody is arguing for defiance… Many posters have said if CITH was disallowed, they would be obedient. I will always follow the directions of my priest, my bishop and my pope. BUT, the fellow parisoner that decides he knows what is best for everyone else when those in authority in the diocese have allowed both CITH and COTT is the one that is bordering on arrogance.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Nobody is arguing for defiance… Many posters have said if CITH was disallowed, they would be obedient. I will always follow the directions of my priest, my bishop and my pope. BUT, the fellow parisoner that decides he knows what is best for everyone else when those in authority in the diocese have allowed both CITH and COTT is the one that is bordering on arrogance.

Yes, this can be a problem, and can lead to one becoming one’s own Magesterium. And it does happen, and it has caused division and schism. We have to be careful not to believe our preferences are superior to what the Church has decreed.

But I, for one, am truly tired of this subject, which has been brought up repeatedly and ad nauseam.

 

[ProVobis]

I will always follow the directions of my priest, my bishop and my pope.

See, this is what baffles me. When I see the priest raise the Host to or above my eye level and he says “Corpus Christi” it looks like he expects me to respond “Amen” and extend my tongue. Since I know the priest can refuse me CITH, his body language tells me he prefers to give COTT. In fact, COTT seems to be less work on his part. I don’t see any priestly directions on giving me CITH, not anymore anyway. The only ones reminding me that I have such rights are fellow parishioners and posters. Enough said.

 

[PatriceA]

See, this is what baffles me. When I see the priest raise the Host to or above my eye level and he says “Corpus Christi” it looks like he expects me to respond “Amen” and extend my tongue. Since I know the priest can refuse me CITH, his body language tells me he prefers to give COTT. In fact, COTT seems to be less work on his part. I don’t see any priestly directions on giving me CITH, not anymore anyway. The only ones reminding me that I have such rights are fellow parishioners and posters. Enough said.

And that is your experience. It doesn’t negate the fact that others, such as myself, may have a completely different experience or that gives anybody else the right to judge their fellow parishoner as being more reverant than others because they receive COTT if both CITH and COTT are permissable in their diocese.

 

[fredms3]

You say that the practice of Communion in the hand is one of Apostolic origin. I would like to see the reference. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus said in reply, “He who has dipped his hand into the dish with me is the one who will betray me. So, I guess it was OK at the first Mass.

I understand your zeal for reverence. I just don’t know how you can presume that someone who receives Our Lord in the hand is necessarily being irreverent. And, those recieving on the tongue are de facto reverent. I always thought it was all about what’s in the heart…

I’ll just post this for your appreciation:

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

 

[fredms3]

Thanks for the opinion but I think I will stand with the Church on this.

CITH is an option that is allowed by the Church and were it is in place it is no less “holy” or “pious” on option than the alternative, COTT.

That is not my opinion. That’s what Popes, Saints and holy peoples say:
Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), states: “It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”

Our Holy Father, John Paul II, some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests, no matter where they came from, who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of the President of France Madame Giscard d’Estaing came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth. Likewise, a canon lawyer present at a papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father also with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue. Currently, John Paul II gives Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. Concelebrating priests are told to do the same.

 As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She 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 and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'" (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], 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. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

Btw, Pope Paul VI says, in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS, pages 546 and 547 that Communion in the Tongue (CITT) is still the law of the Church.

CITH was just made an option. Pope Paul VI gave his permission to go against the letter of the law if the two principles and the seven rules are followed. It’s an all or nothing rule.

 

[fredms3]

Thank you. I certainly hope this isn’t a thread that some are judging people that receive CITH as any less “Catholic” or holy than ones that receive COTT. I certainly hope we aren’t encouraging people to look at people in the communion line and passing judgement when we should be concentrating on our own state of grace when we receive the Eucharist.

Certainly not.

Just remember that in CITH, two principles and seven rules as prescribed by Pope Paul VI must be followed,

We may not know it, but the ministering priest and the communicant may be both guilty of SACRILEGE.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

That is not my opinion. That’s what Popes, Saints and holy peoples say:
Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), states: “It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”

Our Holy Father, John Paul II, some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests, no matter where they came from, who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of the President of France Madame Giscard d’Estaing came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth. Likewise, a canon lawyer present at a papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father also with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue. Currently, John Paul II gives Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. Concelebrating priests are told to do the same.

 As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She 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 and so on. "Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'" (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], 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. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

Btw, Pope Paul VI says, in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS, pages 546 and 547 that Communion in the Tongue (CITT) is still the law of the Church.

CITH was just made an option. Pope Paul VI gave his permission to go against the letter of the law if the two principles and the seven rules are followed. It’s an all or nothing rule.

Well…with all due respect to Thomas Aquinas…a deacons hands are not concentrated and yet he is also an ordinary minister of holy communion…

 

[LilyM]

That quote allegedly from Mother Teresa was never said by her - Father Rutler has clarified that it was not.

And I’m sure I’ve seen a few pictures of Blessed John Paul II personally giving communion in the hand - so it seems totally inconsistent that he would insist on communion on the tongue in Saint Peter’s.

 

[fredms3]

That quote allegedly from Mother Teresa was never said by her - Father Rutler has clarified that it was not.

And I’m sure I’ve seen a few pictures of Blessed John Paul II personally giving communion in the hand - so it seems totally inconsistent that he would insist on communion on the tongue in Saint Peter’s.

I suggest that you post the text where Father Rutler clarified the issue.

I agre that there is somehow inconsistency in what we see and what we’re reading from his writings. But that doesn’t mean his with it. He definitely knew the law of the Church regarding the manner of distribution of Holy Communion—that is—by the tongue as done through the many centuries of tradition behind it, as can be gleaned from Memoraile Domini as decreed by Pope Paul VI.

 

[fredms3]

Well…with all due respect to Thomas Aquinas…a deacons hands are not concentrated and yet he is also an ordinary minister of holy communion…

Right. I believe deacons were given the authority to give the Sacred Host to the communicant/s in special cases.

I hope i can find that or would appreciate if someone help us out on this. tnx.

 

[Melchior_1]

Thomas is a cool guy and all of that, he wasn’t infallible. Famously, during his life he disagreed with the Immaculate Conception.

A quick Google search will yield several results detailing Mother Teresa’s comments on receiving by the hand, and that the quote attributed to was a hoax. Compare her “quote” with this;

“…The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself… the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion”

Communion in the hand (allowed practice within the Church) on par with the destruction of innocents?

 

[LilyM]

Sorry, I can’t find where Fr Rutler refuted that alleged quote, but Blessed Mother Teresa’s order, the Missionaries of Charity, declare it ‘inauthentic’ on their website: motherteresa.org/08_info/ReceivingC.html

And the law of the Church is in fact that Communion may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at least in the OF Mass, except for a handful of dioceses which do not have the indult.

And certainly Church law is that it is the priest/and or Bishop’s prerogative to determine whether there is sufficient risk of profanation (and any method has some risks of profanation) and whatnot to make it prudent to disallow reception in the hand. Such matters are always the sole prerogative of the priests or bishops concerned. Not yours, or mine, or for that matter Blessed Mother Teresa’s.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That is not my opinion. That’s what Popes, Saints and holy peoples say:

Yup, still your opinion.

As for Aquinas, others have pointed out the error there. It is a common one. The priest’s hands are not consecrated to hold the Eucharist (as pointed out a deacons hands are not consecrated), they are consecrated to confect the Eucharist.

Btw, Pope Paul VI says, in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS, pages 546 and 547 that Communion in the Tongue (CITT) is still the law of the Church.

CITH was just made an option. Pope Paul VI gave his permission to go against the letter of the law if the two principles and the seven rules are followed. It’s an all or nothing rule.

No one has claimed otherwise. Where the option for CITH is allowed it is also the “law of the Church.”

 

[Brooklyn]

I have read rather quickly through this thread, so someone may have already posted this and I missed it. But for those who wish to receive in the hand and defend it by pointing to early church practices, then I think they need to receive in exactly the same way the early Church received, which is as follows. I took this from a website by a monk:

Ms Harrington herself gives the clue to the compromise when she refers approvingly to St Cyril of Jerusalem’s instruction to his catechumens:

When you come forward for Communion, do not draw near with your hands wide open or with fingers spread apart; instead, with you left hand make a throne for the right hand, which will receive the King. Receive the body of Christ in the hollow of your hand and give the response: Amen.

The unwary miss it the first time reading this passage. St Cyril tells his flock to make a “throne” with their hands. It is clearly a deliberate and careful posture, meant to show great reverence. But there is more. Schneider (p.38) quotes the ancient canons of the Chaldean Church which, strikingly, forbade the priest from using his fingers to put the Host in his mouth. He was directed to consume it straight from his palm, to signify clearly that the Host was not ordinary but “heavenly food”.

That this unusual and striking canon was included clearly implies that in the early Church the laity did not use their fingers to place the Host in their mouths: they consumed it straight from the palm. Many Anglican converts still receive this way, and it is most edifying. Usually they will also lick or gently suck on their palms to ensure that no fragment of the Host is left behind.

So might it not be a good and charitable thing to do for Christians who are committed for whatever reason to receiving Communion on the hand:

1.To bow or genuflect before approaching the priest or deacon distributing Communion (when I was at my Jesuit school in the late 1970s/early 80s, we were taught to genuflect when we reached number three in line);

**2.To place the left hand over the right in the form of a cross, cupping them slightly to make a throne, or for the Christmas-hearted, a crib;

3.To bring the Host on the palm straight up to one’s mouth, licking or gently sucking on the palm to ensure no fragment is left;**

4.Before walking off, to make a sign of reverence for the holy food just received, the sign of the cross being the obvious one. Any appearance of rushing at Communion time is to be avoided at all costs. We can spare the Lord a few more minutes, surely.​

So when you receive in the hand, to avoid desecration of the Blessed Sacrament through dropping fragments, DO NOT pick it up with your fingers but use your tongue to take it from your cupped palm. And then lick your palm to ensure that you have consumed all fragments. That is what the early Church did.

For those who wish to see what physically happens to the host when you receive in the hand, take a look at this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0&feature=related

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have read rather quickly through this thread, so someone may have already posted this and I missed it. But for those who wish to receive in the hand and defend it by pointing to early church practices, then I think they need to receive in exactly the same way the early Church received, which is as follows. I took this from a website by a monk:

Ms Harrington herself gives the clue to the compromise when she refers approvingly to St Cyril of Jerusalem’s instruction to his catechumens:

When you come forward for Communion, do not draw near with your hands wide open or with fingers spread apart; instead, with you left hand make a throne for the right hand, which will receive the King. Receive the body of Christ in the hollow of your hand and give the response: Amen.

The unwary miss it the first time reading this passage. St Cyril tells his flock to make a “throne” with their hands. It is clearly a deliberate and careful posture, meant to show great reverence. But there is more. Schneider (p.38) quotes the ancient canons of the Chaldean Church which, strikingly, forbade the priest from using his fingers to put the Host in his mouth. He was directed to consume it straight from his palm, to signify clearly that the Host was not ordinary but “heavenly food”.

That this unusual and striking canon was included clearly implies that in the early Church the laity did not use their fingers to place the Host in their mouths: they consumed it straight from the palm. Many Anglican converts still receive this way, and it is most edifying. Usually they will also lick or gently suck on their palms to ensure that no fragment of the Host is left behind.

So might it not be a good and charitable thing to do for Christians who are committed for whatever reason to receiving Communion on the hand:

1.To bow or genuflect before approaching the priest or deacon distributing Communion (when I was at my Jesuit school in the late 1970s/early 80s, we were taught to genuflect when we reached number three in line);

**2.To place the left hand over the right in the form of a cross, cupping them slightly to make a throne, or for the Christmas-hearted, a crib;

3.To bring the Host on the palm straight up to one’s mouth, licking or gently sucking on the palm to ensure no fragment is left;**

4.Before walking off, to make a sign of reverence for the holy food just received, the sign of the cross being the obvious one. Any appearance of rushing at Communion time is to be avoided at all costs. We can spare the Lord a few more minutes, surely.​

So when you receive in the hand, to avoid desecration of the Blessed Sacrament through dropping fragments, DO NOT pick it up with your fingers but use your tongue to take it from your cupped palm. And then lick your palm to ensure that you have consumed all fragments. That is what the early Church did.

For those who wish to see what physically happens to the host when you receive in the hand, take a look at this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0&feature=related

As I think has been said before in this thread.

I think you need to worry more about yourself than about me. Do not concern yourself with how I receive the Eucharist. Your focus should not be one me. As long as I receive in a manner that the Church allows it is really none of your concern.

I will do the same for you.

 

[Brooklyn]

As I think has been said before in this thread.

I think you need to worry more about yourself than about me. Do not concern yourself with how I receive the Eucharist. Your focus should not be one me. As long as I receive in a manner that the Church allows it is really none of your concern.

I will do the same for you.

I’m not judging anyone. The Church has validated communion in the hand and therefore I am not speaking against it. I am just letting you know what happens to the host if you do choose to receive in the hand and how to lessen the chance of desecrating the consecrated host.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not judging anyone. The Church has validated communion in the hand and therefore I am not speaking against it. I am just letting you know what happens to the host if you do choose to receive in the hand and how to lessen the chance of desecrating the consecrated host.

In other words . . .

I am not . . . But . . .

Again, it is none of your concern.

I hope you are aware of the Church Teaching that the real presence ceases to be there when the host looses the appearance of bread.

Host dust does not contain the real presence.

One could logically argue (not saying that I am just that the possibility exists) that a crumb also does not contain the real presence as it is not bread but a crumb.

I am not going to get into that though.

The Church allows for CITH. It is not your concern how I receive.

So your “offering” this video is intrusive and a judgement. You are under the impression that I am “uneducated” and receive in this manner without knowing what you know.

What about the priests (and EMHCs) hands who are giving out communion?