Communion By The Hand

[LilyM]

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?

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?

I quote: ‘… ancient canons of the Chaldean Church which, strikingly, forbade the priest from using his fingers to put the Host into his [ie the priest’s own] mouth …’ you might want to read things a bit more carefully before you post them.

And of course I lick my fingers, and palms as well, if there are any visible particles on them.

Note that invisible particles, not having the appearance of bread (well, they don’t have the
appearance of anything) are no longer the Real Presence and therefore need not be a concern.

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

Okay, I see what you got that from. The part talking about the priest using his palm was what I had copied from the website. I did not personally write it. Like it or not, that is an historical fact in the Catholic Church. Obviously it changed throughout the centuries.

Can everyone please take a deep breath here and stop beating one another up?

 

[Brooklyn]

I quote: ‘… ancient canons of the Chaldean Church which, strikingly, forbade the priest from using his fingers to put the Host into his [ie the priest’s own] mouth …’ you might want to read things a bit more carefully before you post them.

And of course I lick my fingers, and palms as well, if there are any visible particles on them.

Note that invisible particles, not having the appearance of bread (well, they don’t have the
appearance of anything) are no longer the Real Presence and therefore need not be a concern.

Do you inspect your palms and fingers, or do you just do it automatically? I have personally never seen anyone do this. I have never seen anyone even look at their hands after receiving.

Also, what you are quoting is historical fact, not something I made up. So why are you blaming me for it?

 

[LilyM]

Okay, I see what you got that from. The part talking about the priest using his palm was what I had copied from the website. I did not personally write it. Like it or not, that is an historical fact in the Catholic Church. Obviously it changed throughout the centuries.

Can everyone please take a deep breath here and stop beating one another up?

Ah. So the rules as to how priests are to receive can and did change over the centuries whereas those very same rules when applied to the laity could not and did not? I smell a big fat double standard here.

 

[Brooklyn]

Ah. So the rules as to how priests are to receive can and did change over the centuries whereas those very same rules when applied to the laity could not and did not? I smell a big fat double standard here.

As I stated earlier, in the TLM, when a priest uses his fingers in the consecration, he then keeps his thumb and forefingers together and does not touch anything but the consecrated host with either his thumb or forefinger from that time time forward until he purifies them once again after distributing communion. Also, when distributing communion to the laity, the altar server holds a paten under each person’s chin to catch any fragments. The person receiving obviously doesn’t touch any part of the host at all. There is very little chance of any fragments falling in this method.

When the laity receive on the hand, a paten is almost never used. The host goes from the priest’s (or EMHC’s) hands to the palm of the one receiving. That person then picks up the host with the fingers of his other hand and places it in his mouth. Seems only logical that there is a much greater chance of fragments dropping from the host with all that handling.

Where is the double standard?

 

[LilyM]

Do you inspect your palms and fingers, or do you just do it automatically? I have personally never seen anyone do this. I have never seen anyone even look at their hands after receiving.

Also, what you are quoting is historical fact, not something I made up. So why are you blaming me for it?

Yes I inspect them. If people around you are doing it discreetly you probably wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) notice it at all - I try not to be obvious about it.

I never implied that you made anything up, but it seems fairly clear that you did not actually read what you had posted, at least not before your first response to me, or you would have understood my comment.

 

[Brooklyn]

Yes I inspect them. If people around you are doing it discreetly you probably wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) notice it at all - I try not to be obvious about it.

I never implied that you made anything up, but it seems fairly clear that you did not actually read what you had posted, at least not before your first response to me, or you would have understood my comment.

I still don’t understand what you are arguing about. What I stated is historical fact. How can you get so upset about that? Your comment still makes no sense because you are attacking me for stating historical fact. If I made it up, you would have a point. I did not make it up. So attacking me makes no sense.

Look, the church says you can receive in the hand. No one is disputing your right to do that. But it is also scientific fact that receiving in the hand can and does lead to dropped fragments, each one of which is our Lord and Saviour. That is what upsets some of us. And that is why we would like people to give receiving in the hand some more thought. Why does that make you so angry?

 

[fredms3]

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.

Receiving communion while in a state of mortal is off-topic actually. What we are talking here is the danger of sacrilege in the way we receive the Sacred Host.

To answer the question anyway…A communicant who is in the state of mortal commits sacrilege whether by COTT or by CITH (though the rules have been complied).

We are talking of Catholics who are in their right mind while receiving Communion.

To those people in your example (satanist and the likes), spitting or even stamping with their feet the Body of Christ (huh), COTT nor the priest and even God cannot stop them from doing such an abominable acts,

Now, are you sure that no Particles of the Sacred Host remain in your hand after taking IT thru CITH?

 

[ProVobis]

And of course I lick my fingers, and palms as well, if there are any visible particles on them.

Note that invisible particles, not having the appearance of bread (well, they don’t have the
appearance of anything) are no longer the Real Presence and therefore need not be a concern.

Hmmm. Theologically you’re correct, but there seem to be some people with pretty good eyes (I know a couple) who can see the rub of some supposedly uncirculated coins even without lenses. And coins are supposed to be insoluble.

And I’m not sure one lick will pick up all the particles. Think of a small amount of liquid soap on your fingers. How much water will it take to remove all of it? A lot, no?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Now, are you sure that no Particles of the Sacred Host remain in your hand after taking IT thru CITH?

Yes I am as I look at them.

Again, once the body looses the appearance of bread the real presence is no longer present. If I can not see any particles because they are not visible then there is no need to worry as they do not contain the real presence because they do not have the appearance of bread.

Also dust is not bread.

If I see any crumbs, I consume them.

Also I see you are assuming that I receive CITH. No where have I stated how I receive the Eucharist.

How I receive is off-topic and really none of your concern.

What is on-topic is that the Church (which is the authority) allows for this practice regardless of your opinion on the matter.

I stand for the Church and what it Teaches. I see you stand elsewhere.

 

[fredms3]

Indeed. Those who only look at pictures don’t see the entire picture. I would regard what the Pope or bishop or priest says in higher regards then how he administers to an individual. He might fear confrontation and he certainly doesn’t want that, so he has to make a judgement call at the last second. Because of the widespread practice of CITH, many never even hearing about COTT, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to suddenly feel comfortable with COTT. I’ve seen an occasional CITH at an EF which does make things difficult for the server holding the paten. The priest in fact may not have even wanted to give CITH but under the circumstances what could he have done, short of creating a scene? I don’t think the moment of communion is where the priests wants to stop and give sermons.

I like your sense of humor on the last part hahahahahaha. What i’ve noticed everytime my family hear mass is that of the 100 communicants, 70 of them receiving in CITH. And what happen next after putting the Sacred Host into their mouth? I don’t want judging but just see it for yourself bro…

 

[LilyM]

I still don’t understand what you are arguing about. What I stated is historical fact. How can you get so upset about that? Your comment still makes no sense because you are attacking me for stating historical fact. If I made it up, you would have a point. I did not make it up. So attacking me makes no sense.

Look, you posted something. I accurately and thoroughly read it - all of it - and then commented based on what I read. Your initial response was along the lines of ‘that’s not what it says - how could you read that into what it says?’ meaning that I misread what you posted. You accused of making a mistake when I haven’t done so. People tend not to like bejng accused of getting things wrong when they haven’t.

Look, the church says you can receive in the hand. No one is disputing your right to do that. But it is also scientific fact that receiving in the hand can and does lead to dropped fragments, each one of which is our Lord and Saviour. That is what upsets some of us. And that is why we would like people to give receiving in the hand some more thought. Why does that make you so angry?

The church actually says a whole lot more than that. One of the canons of the Council of Trent curses with anathema anyone who suggests that any of the rites or ceremonies employed by the Church are ‘incentives to impiety’. I believe the ‘rites or ceremonies’ certainly includes the method of reception of communion. And I believe that constant linking of CITH with words like sacrilege, or stating as some do that CITH is a cause of declining belief in the Real Presence and all other manner of evils, is skirting dangerously close to saying that CITH is an incentive to impiety, and this skirting dangerously close to anathema.

Has any comparison been done with CITH and COTT in terms of fragments? Those little particles are extremely light, can travel long distances from paten or ciborium with or without human intervention, and while perhaps a little of this can be prevented by the use of patens, I don’t know that this isn’t merely a perception which doesn’t square with the truth.

 

[LilyM]

Hmmm. Theologically you’re correct, but there seem to be some people with pretty good eyes (I know a couple) who can see the rub of some supposedly uncirculated coins even without lenses. And coins are supposed to be insoluble.

And I’m not sure one lick will pick up all the particles. Think of a small amount of liquid soap on your fingers. How much water will it take to remove all of it? A lot, no?

Well, the Good Lord gave me my eyesight as is. And somehow I don’t think He expects me to get out a magnifying glass any more than He expects the surface of the altar to be vacuumed for better fragment removal post every Mass (how would that work anyway? Would you need a special one just devoted to the purpose and nothing else, or would an ordinary vacuum cleaner do?)

I look at my hands, lick where I see a crumb. Repeat as necessary. If anything is still there after that, it is invisible. See rule No. 1 above.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

As I stated earlier, in the TLM, when a priest uses his fingers in the consecration, he then keeps his thumb and forefingers together and does not touch anything but the consecrated host with either his thumb or forefinger from that time time forward until he purifies them once again after distributing communion. Also, when distributing communion to the laity, the altar server holds a paten under each person’s chin to catch any fragments. The person receiving obviously doesn’t touch any part of the host at all. There is very little chance of any fragments falling in this method.

When the laity receive on the hand, a paten is almost never used. The host goes from the priest’s (or EMHC’s) hands to the palm of the one receiving. That person then picks up the host with the fingers of his other hand and places it in his mouth. Seems only logical that there is a much greater chance of fragments dropping from the host with all that handling.

Where is the double standard?

Except many parishes don’t use patens so even with COTT-particles can fall…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I like your sense of humor on the last part hahahahahaha. What i’ve noticed everytime my family hear mass is that of the 100 communicants, 70 of them receiving in CITH. And what happen next after putting the Sacred Host into their mouth? I don’t want judging but just see it for yourself bro…

You say you don’t want to judge and yet you do. I am not going to be looking at anyone to “see for myself” … I spend too much time after receiving the Eucharist praying in thanksgiving.

 

[ProVobis]

I like your sense of humor on the last part hahahahahaha. What i’ve noticed everytime my family hear mass is that of the 100 communicants, 70 of them receiving in CITH. And what happen next after putting the Sacred Host into their mouth? I don’t want judging but just see it for yourself bro…

I hear you. I know something’s wrong when I see coin dealers handling coins with more respect (read, with minimal touching) than some people handling the Body and Blood of Christ. Not judging though, just observing.

 

[PatriceA]

You say you don’t want to judge and yet you do. I am not going to be looking at anyone to “see for myself” … I spend too much time after receiving the Eucharist praying in thanksgiving.

Exactly. I must be doing it all wrong…I haven’t spent enough time counting how many people are receiving COTT or CITH at the masses I attend.

 

[ProVobis]

Except many parishes don’t use patens so even with COTT-particles can fall…

Fair point. I see the paten as absolutely essential.

 

[fredms3]

Yes I am as I look at them.

Again, once the body looses the appearance of bread the real presence is no longer present. If I can not see any particles because they are not visible then there is no need to worry as they do not contain the real presence because they do not have the appearance of bread.

Also dust is not bread.

If I see any crumbs, I consume them.

Also I see you are assuming that I receive CITH. No where have I stated how I receive the Eucharist.

How I receive is off-topic and really none of your concern.

What is on-topic is that the Church (which is the authority) allows for this practice regardless of your opinion on the matter.

I stand for the Church and what it Teaches. I see you stand elsewhere.

You are contradicting yourself my friend. Be careful next time ok…

If I see any crumbs, I consume them.

No where have I stated how I receive the Eucharist.

I’m not stating an opinion, i’m stating the facts. Yours is the opinion actually.

My question is not off-topic…what is questionable actually is how you contradict yourself…

Your standing on what? you are standing on contradiction my friend… Be careful next time ok.
.

 

[fredms3]

My brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church:

The topic is to inform all of us on the pros and cons of receiving in COTT and CITH. This is not to malign or in any way solicit enemies and therefore i humbly request that we talk in a Christian way. Sorry if i am carried away in one of my posts. Please post the nice way. Tnx.

Mama Mary pray for us…