Communion By The Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter fredms3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PJM said:
***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.
This is a GRAVE misunderstanding of reception of Communion in the Hand and is not what the Church Teaches in the matter.
**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.
**
Click to expand...
Sadly with the errors you make in this post your opinion here is highly suspect. I could say more but I will refrain from the personal attack. I would advise you to do the same in the future.
Click to expand...
 
I’ll speak up again…I prefer CITH but am not against COTT at all. In fact as a EMHC I try to be VERY careful not to lead one way or the other and to not make it seem weird if they want to receive COTT…and there are a few that do.

What I am against is the notion that somehow I don’t believe in the real presence or that I am less holy because I choose on option that Holy Mother Church allows.

As for the insunation above that I am not Catholic for doing so…:mad: SHAME on YOU!

I think that it’s a fallacy to say that if we went back to COTT that everyone would be receiving worthly and with greater reverence…
 
PJM said:
Sadly that is insufficient for many who choose to call themselves “catholic”.
Click to expand...
Since Pope Benedict (when still Cardinal Ratzinger) himself said “A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion,” your insult of putting quotes around the word catholic must apply to him, also.

How sad to see such disrespect to our Pontiff.
 
Nicea325 said:
Okay,but I have also seen Communion misplaced on the tongue and fall on the ground. As the pope said receiving communion in the hand was an early church practice.
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed that they are making the wafers larger, even for the EF. Personally I don’t know why that is necessary. The smaller round ones fit much better for COTT.
 
Brooklyn said:
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
Click to expand...
Amen to that…based on what St. Cyril of Jerusalem had stated and based on what we can see on how communicants (almost but not all) deal themselves in receiving CITH, sacrilege is being committed.

I hope we can help our Church on this the best possible way can
 
Brooklyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right. Most of the communicants actually are receiving CITH without knowing the principles and the rules that accompany it.

Catholics who were invited in our prayer meeting, know nothing about the rules in CITH. And started to receive COTT when informed on the gravity of the sin committed when they fail to comply with them.
 
Angel_Bradford said:
How, exactly, is a priest to know the state od a person’s soul?
Click to expand...
Good question.

The priest should always be in a state of Grace to be able to discern which is which.

Now, if in case the priest is of uncertainty, then (as for me) he better be honest to himself and to the communicant by signing that the Sacred Host be received in tongue. Remember the priest is commtting a grievious sin in giving CITH to an unworthy communicant.
 
fredms3 said:
Good question.

The priest should always be in a state of Grace to be able to discern which is which.

Now, if in case the priest is of uncertainty, then (as for me) he better be honest to himself and to the communicant by signing that the Sacred Host be received in tongue. Remember the priest is commtting a grievious sin in giving CITH to an unworthy communicant.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this nonsense from?

No where does the Church Teach this.

It would be just as wrong to give COTT to an unworthy communicant.

The priesthood is not some magical thing that allows a man to know the state of a persons soul. There is no way for a priest to know if a communicant is worthy or not.

I also believe that it would be wrong for a priest to give CITH to others and then just decide to change to COTT for some.
 
fredms3 said:
Amen to that…based on what St. Cyril of Jerusalem had stated and based on what we can see on how communicants (almost but not all) deal themselves in receiving CITH, sacrilege is being committed.

I hope we can help our Church on this the best possible way can
Click to expand...
Brooklyn’s post is an epic fail in logic. If a priest cannot use his own fingers to administer his own host to himself, then how can he be permitted to use them to minister it to others? And why is the palm OK for laypeople if the fingers are not?

Either a priest’s hands are consecrated or they are not. And neither fingers nor palm of a layperson is consecrated, after all, and I personally find it way easier to discreetly lick my fingers than my palm. 🤷

Doubtless this is why such ridiculous disciplinary rules seem to have been entirely dropped, at the very least for priests, after the council to which you refer.
 
LilyM said:
Brooklyn’s post is an epic fail in logic. If a priest cannot use his own fingers to administer his own host to himself, then how can he be permitted to use them to minister it to others? And why is the palm OK for laypeople if the fingers are not?

Either a priest’s hands are consecrated or they are not. And neither fingers nor palm of a layperson is consecrated, after all, and I personally find it way easier to discreetly lick my fingers than my palm. 🤷

Doubtless this is why such ridiculous disciplinary rules seem to have been entirely dropped, at the very least for priests, after the council to which you refer.
Click to expand...
I will repeat what has been said in this thread as well as repeatedly on the forum.

A priest’s hands are not consecrated for the handling of the Eucharist.

The deacon is also an ordinary minister of communion and his hands are not consecrated.

The consecration of a priest’s hands are for the confection of the Eucharist, (again) not for the handling of it.
 
ByzCath said:
I will repeat what has been said in this thread as well as repeatedly on the forum.

A priest’s hands are not consecrated for the handling of the Eucharist.

The deacon is also an ordinary minister of communion and his hands are not consecrated.

The consecration of a priest’s hands are for the confection of the Eucharist, (again) not for the handling of it.
Click to expand...
My apologies for further muddying the waters. I was just trying to show how inconsistent Brooklyn’s ideas were in light of the whole ‘we should not receive in the hand because only the priest’s hands are consecrated’ argument.

You rightly point out, and I heartily agree, that the consecration of the priest’s hands has no bearing on the issue at all.
 
ByzCath said:
Where do you get this nonsense from?

No where does the Church Teach this.

It would be just as wrong to give COTT to an unworthy communicant.

The priesthood is not some magical thing that allows a man to know the state of a persons soul. There is no way for a priest to know if a communicant is worthy or not.

I also believe that it would be wrong for a priest to give CITH to others and then just decide to change to COTT for some.
Click to expand...
There is much nonsense being stated as fact on this thread.

-Tim-
 
PatriceA said:
There is danger in committing sacrilege no matter how one receives the Eucharist. Quite presumptious of you to assume that anybody receiving CITH thinks the Body of Christ is just bread bought from the store. That’s offensive.
Click to expand...
Can you give one instance where there is danger of committing sacrilege in receiving COTT?

I think you did not get my point when i say that if what we receive is not the Body of Christ, then the Church would not bother giving us rules in receiving CITT, therefore no presumption whatsoever.
 
fredms3 said:
Can you give one instance where there is danger of committing sacrilege in receiving COTT?
Click to expand...
I will refrain from being graphic here.

A person who receives COTT while being in the state of mortal sin commits a sacrilege.

Can you tell us how COTT protects from sacrilege?

A person could receive COTT then take three steps away and spit the body out into their hand to later use it for what ever nefarious purpose they could come up with.

COTT does not have some supernatural protection from such things.
 
LilyM said:
Brooklyn’s post is an epic fail in logic. If a priest cannot use his own fingers to administer his own host to himself, then how can he be permitted to use them to minister it to others? And why is the palm OK for laypeople if the fingers are not?

Either a priest’s hands are consecrated or they are not. And neither fingers nor palm of a layperson is consecrated, after all, and I personally find it way easier to discreetly lick my fingers than my palm. 🤷

Doubtless this is why such ridiculous disciplinary rules seem to have been entirely dropped, at the very least for priests, after the council to which you refer.
Click to expand...
Where in the world did I say that a priest’ own fingers cannot administer communion to himself? I don’t remember ever writing any such thing.

I talked about the early Church receiving in the palm of their hands and then using their tongues to take the host into their mouths and licking their palms to ensure that they got all fragments. That is an historical fact. I said nothing about the priest doing this. Where are you getting this from? :confused:

In the Latin Mass, once the priest has consecrated the host, he keeps his thumb and forefingers, which touch the consecrated host, together at all times until they are purified after the distribution of communion so as to avoid any fragments falling from his fingers. This is the first time I’ve mentioned that fact.

What is going on here???

BTW, do you lick your fingers after receiving in the hand? And what do you do about the fragments that remain on your palm?
 
fredms3 said:
Can you give one instance where there is danger of committing sacrilege in receiving COTT?

I think you did not get my point when i say that if what we receive is not the Body of Christ, then the Church would not bother giving us rules in receiving CITT, therefore no presumption whatsoever.
Click to expand...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#section_4n

Look under the heading ‘Eucharist controversy’. Point being the student had the Eucharist in his mouth, then spat it out and proceeded to desecrate it. This can happen, probably has happened but less notoriously, equally easily in venues that distribute solely COTT.

I am really getting the impression that you truly think the Eucharist was never desecrated prior to 1970. Be assured that it was. And that most EVERY desecration that happened in those 1970 years happened with COTT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top