Communion By The Hand

[fredms3]

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.

What judgement did i make sis?

 

[PhilOSophia]

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

If you have a point to make, please make it.

 

[agnes_therese]

When the laity receive on the hand, a paten is almost never used.

Not true. We always use patens in my parish. Some receive in the hand, some on the tongue. Not a problem for our priest or our Extraordinary Ministers.

 

[TrueLight]

Not true. We always use patens in my parish. Some receive in the hand, some on the tongue. Not a problem for our priest or our Extraordinary Ministers.

In CITH, where is the paten placed? Under the communicant’s hand?

 

[Brooklyn]

Not true. We always use patens in my parish. Some receive in the hand, some on the tongue. Not a problem for our priest or our Extraordinary Ministers.

If you will notice, said a paten is almost never used. I use to see it used an a vigil I went to for several years, but that was the only time. Outside of that, I have never seen it used in an OF. Good for your church.

But that still doesn’t help with the fragments that are left on those who receive in the hand. A paten is only truly effective for those who receive on the tongue.

 

[PatriceA]

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…

Go back and replace “COTT” for everytime you wrote “CITH” and see if it comes across as an actual discussion. I think you’d have a much different take on what you wrote in your posts.

 

[fredms3]

Go back and replace “COTT” for everytime you wrote “CITH” and see if it comes across as an actual discussion. I think you’d have a much different take on what you wrote in your posts.

I believe i’m clear on my position on COTT and most specially on CITH. What’s your point in doing so?

May i ask you, do you know beforehand that CITH is to be allowed only if the rules and conditions as provided in Memoraile Domini as decreed by Pope Paul VI?

 

[PatriceA]

I believe i’m clear on my position on COTT and most specially on CITH. What’s your point in doing so?

May i ask you, do you know beforehand that CITH is to be allowed only if the rules and conditions as provided in Memoraile Domini as decreed by Pope Paul VI?

My point, you are not having a simple discussion as you might think you are. I challenge you to replace “COTT” for “CITH” in all your posts, you’ll see you come off as very judgemental towards people that choose differently than you do. If you say you are not being judgemental, then you shouldn’t have any problem with what I’m asking.

And yes, I am well aware of the second part.

 

[ProVobis]

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?)

Well, my eyesight and altar cleaning aside, I think I’d prefer an MS-65 (no rubs) coin over an AU-50 (almost uncirculated) one, even if God is the only one who could tell the difference. Just saying.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, my eyesight and altar cleaning aside, I think I’d prefer an MS-65 (no rubs) coin over an AU-50 (almost uncirculated) one, even if God is the only one who could tell the difference. Just saying.

Have no idea what coins or what rubs are and what they have to do with the Eucharist but if one is unable to see a particle of the host then the real presence is not there.

Again, for the real presence to be there it must retain the appearance of bread. I challenge anyone to look at a “fragment” that they can not see with their own unaided eyesight and to say that it is a piece of bread.

 

[ProVobis]

In CITH, where is the paten placed? Under the communicant’s hand?

Yes but it seems it would have to be a much bigger paten to catch all the particles, though.

Particle physics is an interesting study. I’ve actually had a priest with a masters degree in physics explain it to me, along with the notice that one is automatically excommunicated for intentionally tossing away parts of the Sacred Species.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

But there is a clear difference here. COTT allows one to keep the Host in his mouth; it would seem he can reflect better on the Real Presence once he’s returned to his pew. Just saying.

 

[fredms3]

My point, you are not having a simple discussion as you might think you are. I challenge you to replace “COTT” for “CITH” in all your posts, you’ll see you come off as very judgemental towards people that choose differently than you do. If you say you are not being judgemental, then you shouldn’t have any problem with what I’m asking.

And yes, I am well aware of the second part.

Again what’s the point? Better to discuss point by point, issue by issue from here than following what you’re saying.

My point is clear that in receiving CITH, the danger of committing sacrilege is of utmost possibility most particularly in Sacred Particles.

Is this being judgemental? No i’m not. I’m just being open and charity would dictate that we should be aware of this.

Nice to hear that you know the conditions and rules of receiving CITH.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again what’s the point? Better to discuss point by point, issue by issue from here than following what you’re saying.

My point is clear that in receiving CITH, the danger of committing sacrilege is of utmost possibility most particularly in Sacred Particles.

Is this being judgemental? No i’m not. I’m just being open and charity would dictate that we should be aware of this.

Nice to hear that you know the conditions and rules of receiving CITH.

A discussion is a two way street. You have yet to address a number of comments on the points that you have put forward.

It appears that you are not here to discuss but to instruct.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

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

I don’t anyone here has ever said they are against COTT; the discussion is always why someone thinks COTH is wrong. It is not wrong.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

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.

There is no crystal ball that comes with being in a state of grace. A priest has no way of knowing who or when someone has been to confession and is now is a state worthy to receive communion.

So it is okay to give COTT to an unworthy communicant? Knowingly receiving Communion while not being in a state of grace is a mortal sin regardless of how a person receives. I think that would put the burden on the communicant and not the priest.

 

[Brooklyn]

I don’t anyone here has ever said they are against COTT; the discussion is always why someone thinks COTH is wrong. It is not wrong.

Yes, receiving communion in the hand is accepted by the Church. That is not my question. We also have the option of receiving on the tongue. I prefer to receive on the tongue because I think it is more reverential and also there is almost no chance that I will desecrate the consecrated host by dropping fragments. Even the Holy Father has made his preference known by saying that if you wish to receive from him, you will kneel and receive on the tongue.

So, for those who prefer to receive in the hand, help out those of us who don’t understand why you prefer that method over the centuries-old method of receiving on the tongue. That is my question. So far, no one has answered that question except to say that I should just worry about myself.

I can understand if no one actually wants to post their reasons, but I would encourage you to give it some thought.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Yes, receiving communion in the hand is accepted by the Church. That is not my question. We also have the option of receiving on the tongue. I prefer to receive on the tongue because I think it is more reverential and also there is almost no chance that I will desecrate the consecrated host by dropping fragments. Even the Holy Father has made his preference known by saying that if you wish to receive from him, you will kneel and receive on the tongue.

So, for those who prefer to receive in the hand, help out those of us who don’t understand why you prefer that method over the centuries-old method of receiving on the tongue. That is my question. So far, no one has answered that question except to say that I should just worry about myself.

I can understand if no one actually wants to post their reasons, but I would encourage you to give it some thought.

Well…I do it because

A. The whole this is what the Pope wants fails to convince me because I have heard other things from him. Typically people will only select what they want from him. Also with other saints.

B. You can have the same problem with particles falling on COTT, especially without the use of a paten…which my two parishes do not use.

C. There is a bigger danger (IMHO) of the host falling as most people do not stick out their tongue wide enough or open wide enough.

D. Any particles are no longer the appearance of bread so as other people have tried to point out…no longer the real presence.

E. I believe that Jesus knew what He was doing when He got into bread and wine…He makes Himself venerable for us.

F. Plenty of the Eucharistic miracles I’ve read about have to do with people stealing the host by COTT…so that argument does not convince me.

G. He has not yet lay it on my heart to receive COTT.

I still RECEIVE Him reverently and am always moved that He would come to us in such a way…who is man that He should care for us.

 

[Mike30]

Yes, receiving communion in the hand is accepted by the Church. That is not my question. We also have the option of receiving on the tongue. I prefer to receive on the tongue because I think it is more reverential and also there is almost no chance that I will desecrate the consecrated host by dropping fragments. Even the Holy Father has made his preference known by saying that if you wish to receive from him, you will kneel and receive on the tongue.

So, for those who prefer to receive in the hand, help out those of us who don’t understand why you prefer that method over the centuries-old method of receiving on the tongue. That is my question. So far, no one has answered that question except to say that I should just worry about myself.

I can understand if no one actually wants to post their reasons, but I would encourage you to give it some thought.

They don t because they cannot. I have been on this and other forums for years and have never, not once, seen an intelligent compelling reason presented for the re-introduction of the practice and quite frankly,I don’t think there is one. Remember this renewal of the practice came about during a time of extensive experimentation with the practices and rituals of the Church. It was a time when virtually anything that was different was seen as good and maybe even necessary to bring in the new era for the Church.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

D. Any particles are no longer the appearance of bread so as other people have tried to point out…no longer the real presence.

This is actually contrary to Church dogma.

Council of Trent, Session XIII (emphasis mine)

—Canon III. If any one shall deny, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the
whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when
separated; let him be anathema.
—Canon IV. If any one shall say, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but
are there only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and
that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which after communion are reserved or
remain, the true body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

The Real Presence of Our Lord is in those particles that remain, even if a crumb does not look like a host.

• PAX