Communion in the hand with gloves

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Yes, they matter. Bread crumbs are still considered bread.

We’re not talking about visible crumbs. We’re talking about specks that are invisible to the naked eye, which are going to exist with either method. Obviously a crumb is still the host because it’s still visibly bread.

I can’t think of a time I’ve ever seen visible crumbs on the floor or anywhere else at Mass, even at parishes where 95% of people receive in the hand.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Yes, they matter. Bread crumbs are still considered bread.

We’re not talking about visible crumbs. We’re talking about specks that are invisible to the naked eye, which are going to exist with either method. Obviously a crumb is still the host.

I can’t think of a time I’ve ever seen visible crumbs on the floor or anywhere else at Mass, under either method of distribution.

I wasn’t talking about invisible crumbs. But there still are tiny visible parts that can stick to a sweaty palm/fingers.

Look, I’m not trying to argue. I’m just providing the opposing point of view.

But you also have to keep in mind that in the Extraordinary Form, use of a patten or cotton sheet over the communion rail (I forget what the sheet is called) to use as a bib is still required and part of the rubrics. This was required until new mass went into effect in 1970

 

[PetraG]

No, the Blessed Sacrament must not touch things that are disposable; not even altar cloths and purificators are allowed to be made of paper or other disposable materials. The reason is obvious if you think about it! So no, it would never be appropriate to place any of the consecrated species on something disposable.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Look, I’m not trying to argue. I’m just providing the opposing point of view.

No, I get it. I’m not trying to say “you’re wrong”; I’m genuinely trying to understand because I don’t get the thrust of the argument.

I don’t see how 1) cith is more likely to lead to visible crumbs being dropped and 2) I don’t see how cith is “disrespectful” which is the other common objection you hear.

But yeah, not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I’m open to being convinced, I just don’t get it personally. Appreciate the friendly discussion.

 

[PetraG]

But yeah, not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I’m open to being convinced, I just don’t get it personally. Appreciate the friendly discussion.

Consider that the sacred vessels, purificators and altar cloths are set aside for sacred use. You don’t use a chalice for Mass on Sunday and a dinner party on Saturday night. If purificators wear out, they are disposed of as sacramentals, not like kitchen rags. Similarly, if it were ever proper to touch the Blessed Sacrament with a glove, that glove would be like a purificator.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

No. Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the smallest Particle of the Host and the tiniest Drop of the Precious Blood.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

You mean this?

 

[AltarSoldier]

…i tried to bite my tongue but I have to voice myself…Im going out on a limb here but some of the replies and rationale that people have when it comes to receiving Our Lord is nauseating and enough to make me hit my head on my keyboard, and it’s no wonder why over 51% of Catholics don’t take the Eucharist seriously and they treat it as just a mere symbol and not the true presence of Jesus

Like seriously, using, gloves? hand sanitizer before receiving Our Lord’s sacred Body, even a ‘purification’ on a hand when receiving in the hand.
Do we just fail to understand that every particle, is Jesus? Do we fail to see that if you’re afraid of microscopic particles touching something that is not consecrated I.e gloves or having remnants of isopropyl or rubbing alcohol like hand sanitizer on your hands what makes you think your own hand is safe?
I work in the medical field. Im face to face with patients a lot of whom now have Covid. I treat them and care for them as if I was caring for the body of Jesus in the tomb. But given these circumstances and also the reverence I have for the sacred vessels, i wouldn’t dare, no matter how much soap I use, receive communion on my hands. I receive on the tongue because that is what works. not only that my face is masked often. Why worry about particles sticking onto surfaces and hands (Which is a test that has been done countless times over the years and shown to be true and not just horse dung) and just receive Our Lord with dignity?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

This is from St. Thomas Aquinas:

On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. 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 consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated…

Source: SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The minister of this sacrament (Tertia Pars, Q. 82). (This is the online version of the Summa Theologica).

 

[Fauken]

use of a patten or cotton sheet over the communion rail (I forget what the sheet is called)

It’s a housing cloth.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Our priest has 2 parishes, is a chaplain for a nursing home, on call to various hospitals and always brings Holy Communion to the sick.

 

[po18guy]

Is it big enough to share?

 

[LisaB]

You won’t gain weight from eating popcorn. Just don’t put butter on it.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Of course! You have as much as you want & I’ll take the bottom.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t see a whole lot of buttering up going on so far…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

My understanding is that once it has lost the appearance of bread and wine, the Real Presence no longer remains anyway.

That is somewhat Protestant belief… I dont think this is what Catholic Church teaches. In other words this is the wrong premise imo.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

No. Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the smallest Particle of the Host and the tiniest Drop of the Precious Blood.

That is somewhat Protestant belief… I dont think this is what Catholic Church teaches. In other words this is the wrong premise imo.

My understanding has always been that once the “accident” of bread is gone, ie, once the portion is so tiny it’s no longer discernible as bread, the Real Presence is gone as well. I’ve heard as much from priests as well, so if you have any official source I’d be interested in reading it.

In any case, if the tiniest, visible only by a microscope portion of the host remains the Body of Christ, then portions are lost at every Mass all over the world. I don’t care how gingerly the priest places it on the tongue of the communicant, some teeny tiny microscopic portion is going to be broken off simply by his handling it.

I don’t have any problem with people doing CITT. I just don’t understand the argument of “oh, I could never touch Jesus, that would be disrespectful and irreverent, but eat His flesh and drink His blood? Sure, that’s fine.” My point is the Eucharist is an extremely intimate act by its very nature. We are having an extremely close, personal encounter with Christ. Saying, “oh, but I couldn’t possibly touch Him” just strikes me as odd in that context.

All that said, if someone prefers to receive that way because they feel like it puts them in a more reverent state of mind, I’m certainly not trying to talk anyone out of it. This is just an issue where we could use a little more respect for the individual.

 

[poche]

Since the ministers are not allowed to wear gloves then it is probably inappropriate for you to wear gloves while receiving communion in the hand.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

My understanding has always been that once the “accident” of bread is gone, ie, once the portion is so tiny it’s no longer discernible as bread, the Real Presence is gone as well.

I don’t really have source at hand atm, but we believe Eucharist becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. It can not un-become it just because bread or wine is gone. Actually, reason Priests cleanse chalice and paten for miniature particles is exactly that it is still Christ present in them. Bread ceases to be bread and wine ceases to be wine- it no longer matters what they were before, they won’t revert back.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

Check question 7, it answers different thing but also includes answer to your question. God bless you.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

Receiving in the hand with gloves would be pointless because you are placing the host in your mouth. (Unless you haven’t washed your own hands). Gloves are used with the direction that you are to not touch your mouth/face/pick your nose/other. Anything on the host would still be there as you eat it. Priest wearing gloves during the entire thing would be problematic. (Not actually touching the host during consecration. Might work for the wine since he doesn’t put fingers in it. Adding a particle of the host while consecrated with gloves on would be odd too)
Without debate, I have no issue with CITH. I see the worry about microscopic particles escaping as bordering on scrupulosity. If you see a piece where it shouldn’t be, act accordingly.
If the alter ware and the priests hands are clean, all should be good. But, then you have the problem of air-transmission/droplets with no mask worn. (Priest could wear one I suppose.)
Pray for us all.
Dominus vobiscum