Communion By The Hand

[ProVobis]

And do tell just how you think the priest is able to make that judgement just by looking at a parishoner.

Don’t bishops make judgements against certain individuals who are not to receive communion? Have you ever heard a bishop even mention mortal sin? There are such things as scandals, whether the communicant knows he’s in a state of sin or not. At least in my opinion this would be a valid reason for a priest to refuse communion.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

How, exactly, is a priest to know the state od a person’s soul?

According to Canon Law there are conditions in which a person should be denied Communion. They involve situations in which we don’t need to know a person’s soul interiorly because they are manifest heretics.

I’m not an expert and there’s disagreement, and this is not what the thread is about, but what’s not debatable is that there are some situations in which Communion should be denied, whatever the hierarchy determine them to be.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

According to Canon Law there are conditions in which a person should be denied Communion. They involve situations in which we don’t need to know a person’s soul interiorly because they are manifest heretics.

I’m not an expert and there’s disagreement, and this is not what the thread is about, but what’s not debatable is that there are some situations in which Communion should be denied, whatever the hierarchy determine them to be.

That is exactly my point…extreme cases.

 

[PatriceA]

Don’t bishops make judgements against certain individuals who are not to receive communion? Have you ever heard a bishop even mention mortal sin? There are such things as scandals, whether the communicant knows he’s in a state of sin or not. At least in my opinion this would be a valid reason for a priest to refuse communion.

And that would be prior knowledge wouldn’t it? Nothing to do with CITH or COTT or being able to instantly recognize that someone shouldn’t be receiving communion by just looking at them. The priest would have to be informed ahead of time in your example.

 

[PhilOSophia]

I think the problem is with Roman Catholicism and the intellectualisation of religion.

It’s something that we read about, think about, write about, instead of imitating the saints. It’s become a tinker toy. Professors, amateurs, enthusiasts and dillettantes find something in a book and think: “Wow! That looks good! Let’s try that!”. The legalists say “It’s allowed, so it’s fine”.

Whereas, if you were a tribesman living in fear of demons, death and natural disaster and you believed that a piece of wafer has become your god, you’d never change to standing up and hold out your hand to receive him, instead of kneeling and being hand fed by a holy man as your forefathers did, who have gone to the other side before you.

 

[Brooklyn]

Webster defines the tem desecrate as:

1. to violate the sanctity of : profane
2. : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously.

I am not sure anyone desecrates the host when receiving our Lord in the hand.I too, side with the wisdom of the Church. I leave everyone’s spiritual relation with the Eucharist to them and God. I have enough to worry about right here…

I did not and am not saying that receiving Communion in the hand is of and by itself sacrilege. Until 1969, receiving communion in the hand was sacrilege, but Paul Paul VI issued an indult (which means: “A faculty granted by the pope to deviate from the common law of the Church”) in 1969 which allows for reception in the hand.

Therefore, CITH is no longer sacrilege. But as has been shown in the video I posted earlier and in many other places, it does tend to lend itself to sacrilege because of particles that fall from the Consecrated Host, even though not intentional. My guess is very few who receive in the hand are aware of the small particles that remain in their hands or fall from the consecrated host. My post was merely to point this out and show ways in which to mitigate the danger of this kind of sacrilege

I would think every believing Catholic would want to do everything he or she can to not desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord.

 

[Baelor]

Whereas, if you were a tribesman living in fear of demons, death and natural disaster and you believed that a piece of wafer has become your god, you’d never change to standing up and hold out your hand to receive him, instead of kneeling and being hand fed by a holy man as your forefathers did, who have gone to the other side before you.

What about the educated and intellectual who are “living in fear of demons, death and natural disaster” who “[believe] that a piece of wafer has become [their] god?”

 

[PhilOSophia]

Demons: We don’t fear them any more.
Death: You’ll live to 75. Probably.
Natural disaster: Not so many famines, plagues and floods these days. At least in Boise, Idaho. Are they increasing in frequency, though?

The wafer. Is it your god? Up off your kness and hold out your hand! Next!

 

[Baelor]

Demons: We don’t fear them any more.
Death: You’ll live to 75. Probably.
Natural disaster: Not so many famines, plagues and floods these days. At least in Boise, Idaho. Are they increasing in frequency, though?

The wafer. Is it your god? Up off your kness and hold out your hand! Next!

That answered the first part of my question. What about the educated and intellectuals who believe in the Real Presence?

 

[Diana_Catherine]

I did not and am not saying that receiving Communion in the hand is of and by itself sacrilege. Until 1969, receiving communion in the hand was sacrilege, but Paul Paul VI issued an indult (which means: “A faculty granted by the pope to deviate from the common law of the Church”) in 1969 which allows for reception in the hand.

Therefore, CITH is no longer sacrilege. But as has been shown in the video I posted earlier and in many other places, it does tend to lend itself to sacrilege because of particles that fall from the Consecrated Host, even though not intentional. My guess is very few who receive in the hand are aware of the small particles that remain in their hands or fall from the consecrated host. My post was merely to point this out and show ways in which to mitigate the danger of this kind of sacrilege

I would think every believing Catholic would want to do everything he or she can to not desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord.

I agree.

What I don’t get is why people are so against COTT? Especially, like you said we should do everything we can to not desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord.

 

[Brooklyn]

I agree.

What I don’t get is why people are so against COTT? Especially, like you said we should do everything we can to not desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Is there anyone among those who choose to receive in the hand who would like to answer this question?

 

[PatriceA]

Is there anyone among those who choose to receive in the hand who would like to answer this question?

Contrary to the impression I’m sure you get from my posts, I actually prefer COTT. What I don’t like is Catholics being made to feel they are inferior or less reverant or sacriligious if they prefer to receive CITH. Both ways of receiving the Eucharist are allowed, we should not denounce our fellow Catholics and build ourselves up in the process for the different choices we all make.

 

[Brooklyn]

Contrary to the impression I’m sure you get from my posts, I actually prefer COTT. What I don’t like is Catholics being made to feel they are inferior or less reverant or sacriligious if they prefer to receive CITH. Both ways of receiving the Eucharist are allowed, we should not denounce our fellow Catholics and build ourselves up in the process for the different choices we all make.

I certainly don’t want anyone to feel they are somehow less because they receive in the hand. After all, they are only doing what the Church permits. I think the main problem is that most people don’t realize the problems it can lead to. If more people were aware of this, maybe fewer people would be receiving in the hand.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We are back to judging souls and/or accusing others of judging souls.

We can’t discuss practices without this back and forth?

When someone discusses CITH and COTT it’s not about you (person who receives CITH devoutly) nor you (person who receives COTT devoutly). The practices can be discussed objectively.

How?

Any discussion against CITH always resides on a value judgement.

Either CITH is less holy or less reverent, or it is a desecration.

How can we have a discussion objectively on the practice which this is so?

It is a matter of opinions. When the Church allows for both CITH and COTT there really is no discussion to be had.

This line from Acts comes to mind.
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 10:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[agnes_therese]

I agree.

What I don’t get is why people are so against COTT? Especially, like you said we should do everything we can to not desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Did someone here actually say that they are “against COTT”?

 

[LilyM]

Is there anyone among those who choose to receive in the hand who would like to answer this question?

I for one simply think that one can go too far in risk avoidance - I mean the fact that any of us receive at all - ever - involves in itself significant risk of crumbs, spills, drops and what have you. People used to be so reluctant that some would just not receive. Hence the once-a-year rule, which was actually necessary.

So why did St Pius X so strongly encourage frequent, even daily, reception? What an enormous difference in the risk of mishandling the Sacred Species to move from yearly (if that) to weekly/daily!

As for the tribesmen example - well they’d almost certainly be wearing God-wafers around their necks as magical protective talismans, or using them in rituals designed to curse or physically harm their enemies, master natural forces like wind or rain, or make themslves immune to fire or poison. And indulge in all sorts of other practices which we rightly label as supersitition.

 

[ProVobis]

So why did St Pius X so strongly encourage frequent, even daily, reception? What an enormous difference in the risk of mishandling the Sacred Species to move from yearly (if that) to weekly/daily!

True, but when one needed to fast from midnight on in order to receive, IMO he or she was less likely to risk any mishandling of the Sacred Species. Just saying.

 

[PJM]

=fredms3;9135692]And what did you notice brother on how these people received the Body of Christ using their hand?

***PIETY is a personal BUT a TAUGHT RESPONSE.

Taking Jesus Christ into ONE’s OWN Hand is TAKING CHRIST!

While having Jesus placed on One’s tongue is RECEIVING Jesus Christ.

PRIEST AND DEACONS HANDS ARE ANNOINTED FOR THIS PRECISE RESPONSIBILITY. AND RECEINVING JESUS REMAINS THE INTERNATIONAL NORM FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IS DEMANDED BY OUR POPE; THE SUCCESSOR TO PETER; PROTECTED BY GOD.

IN FACT POPE BENEDICT DEMANDS THAT THOSE TO WHOM HE PERSOANLLY DISTRIBUTED HOLY COMMUNION; RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST WHILE KEELING AND ON THEIR TONGUE.[this too is the international NORM!]

Sadly that is insufficient for many who choose to call themselves “catholic”***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ProVobis]

PIETY is a personal BUT a TAUGHT RESPONSE.

Taking Jesus Christ into ONE’s OWN Hand is TAKING CHRIST!

While having Jesus placed on One’s tongue is RECEIVING Jesus Christ.

Not to be too oversemantical here, but the Latin is accipite, from which the English “accept” comes from. (“Receive” would be recipite and “take” would be capite but neither were used.)

Your point taken, however.

Matthew 26:26

26 Cœnantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et ait : Accipite, et comedite : hoc est corpus meum.

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus ____ bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: ____ and eat. This is my body

 

[LilyM]

***PIETY is a personal BUT a TAUGHT RESPONSE.

Taking Jesus Christ into ONE’s OWN Hand is TAKING CHRIST!

While having Jesus placed on One’s tongue is RECEIVING Jesus Christ.

PRIEST AND DEACONS HANDS ARE ANNOINTED FOR THIS PRECISE RESPONSIBILITY. AND RECEINVING JESUS REMAINS THE INTERNATIONAL NORM FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IS DEMANDED BY OUR POPE; THE SUCCESSOR TO PETER; PROTECTED BY GOD.

IN FACT POPE BENEDICT DEMANDS THAT THOSE TO WHOM HE PERSOANLLY DISTRIBUTED HOLY COMMUNION; RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST WHILE KEELING AND ON THEIR TONGUE.[this too is the international NORM!]

Sadly that is insufficient for many who choose to call themselves “catholic”***

God Bless,
Pat

Excuse me, why the quotation marks around the word Catholic? Are you truly suggesting that those who receive in the hand are not Catholic?

As for Pope Benedict, firstly there are prudential reasons for his decision that apply to no-one else. Numerous cases occurred during the pontificate of John Paul II where sacred hosts were souvenired (precisely because they came from the Pope’s own hands) and even one or two attempts to sell them on eBay, again precisely because they came from the Pope.

It seems pretty clear that hosts received from His Holiness are much much more likely to be profaned in this way than those from a common or garden variety clergyman, and so extra care needs to be taken with them.

And there have been at least one or two cases, humans being human, where communicants have forgotten or ignored the rule and attempted to receive from His Holiness in the hand. They were not, to my knowledge, hustled away by the Swiss Guard nor lectured then or later by anybody about the critical theological and spiritual importance of reception on the tongue. Instead, His Holjness simply gave them communion in the hand. Hardly the act of someone who considers the matter of overwhelming theological or spiritual significance.