Communion in the Hand

[Spiller]

You know that Anglicans do not believe in the REAL PRESENCE, the Body, Soul and divinity of Christ present in the Eucharist. If you guys did you would have the Tabernacle to hold the Body and Blood of Christ.
Also your priests do not have the power to consecrate.

NO!

Their ministers ability to confect the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is dependent upon the gift of a valid priesthood and not upon the beliefs of the faithful.

Further Anglicans and Lutherans DO believe in the real presence…

 

[Monica4316]

I’m not Catholic yet, but I will be… and when I’m able to take Communion, I’d like to receive the Eucharist in my mouth, not in my hand. I know people who receive it in their hand but with a lot of love and reverence, but I still like it the other way… because the Eucharist is so holy…

God bless

 

[Spiller]

I’m not Catholic yet, but I will be… and when I’m able to take Communion, I’d like to receive the Eucharist in my mouth, not in my hand. I know people who receive it in their hand but with a lot of love and reverence, but I still like it the other way… because the Eucharist is so holy…

God bless

It’s wonderful to have the options and you are certainly entitled to your own. I don’t see CIH as treating the Blessed Sacrament in a somehow lesser manner though.

 

[PrayforMallory]

NO!

Their ministers ability to confect the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is dependent upon the gift of a valid priesthood and not upon the beliefs of the faithful.

Further Anglicans and Lutherans DO believe in the real presence…

Wait,

So they believe they are literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ? I didn’t know that. Learn something new every day. I always thought the Eucharist was just a symbol to them.

 

[AJV]

Wait,

So they believe they are literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ? I didn’t know that. Learn something new every day. I always thought the Eucharist was just a symbol to them.

I think it varies across the Anglican Communion. The Anglican church I used to attend was strongly memorialist or Calvinist ‘dynamic presence’. If you went and asked the Anglican archbishop of Sydney, he would deny any sort of Real Presence. OTOH, go to Anglican bishop of Fulham and he definitely assents since he celebrates “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament”.

The Anglican Communion has quite a varied theology on the point and you could probably find every spectrum of Eucharistic belief. Also , Real Presence =/= transubstantiation. Sometimes when some people speak of it, they mean the same thing but are just averse (for one reason or another) to using the word “transubstantiation”. Others say “real presence” but don’t mean the same thing.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I think it varies across the Anglican Communion. The Anglican church I used to attend was strongly memorialist or Calvinist ‘dynamic presence’. If you went and asked the Anglican archbishop of Sydney, he would deny any sort of Real Presence. OTOH, go to Anglican bishop of Fulham and he definitely assents since he celebrates “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament”.

The Anglican Communion has quite a varied theology on the point and you could probably find every spectrum of Eucharistic belief. Also , Real Presence =/= transubstantiation. Sometimes when some people speak of it, they mean the same thing but are just averse (for one reason or another) to using the word “transubstantiation”. Others say “real presence” but don’t mean the same thing.

What’s the difference? If they basically have our Eucharistic belief, what’s the div between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation?”
If Roman Catholics are talking about transubstantiation, why not say it?

 

[japhy]

What’s the difference? If they basically have our Eucharistic belief, what’s the div between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation?” If Roman Catholics are talking about transubstantiation, why not say it?

It is conceivable to them that Jesus can be “really present” in the bread and wine without the substance of the bread and wine changing.

 

[AJV]

What’s the difference? If they basically have our Eucharistic belief, what’s the div between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation?”
If Roman Catholics are talking about transubstantiation, why not say it?

As I said in my post, when they say “real presence” they don’t *always *mean transubstantiation. “Real Presence” encompasses a number of theories, of which transubstantiation is only one. japhy summed it up and nicely and concisely earlier. Again, in the Anglican Communion, you’d probably find every single type of Eucharistic belief in the spectrum.

However, I would say that anyone who says “Real Presence” and celebrates, say, Benediction, or has a Eucharistic procession, may be reasonably assumed to have the same belief. Why might they not want to use transubstantiation? Sometimes, they view the word as too “scholastic”, or tied into definitions or with many overtones of a different and outdated science, or they cannot accept certain philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of the word .

 

[JMMK]

I heard somewhere that a bishop once said that your tongue is no more pure than your hand. Also Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a beautiful defense of the communion in the hand. Either way has beautiful significance if done with full fear and respect of the situation.

One thought that crossed my mind that hit me hard in defense of communion on the tongue is that you cannot give yourself salvation, it is a gift. Granted it is given from a priest either way, but the symbolism is greater on the tongue because you have less control. All you can do in that case is present yourself.

Someone once brought this idea to me as well. We fell through our first parents feeding themselves in order to be like God. Now God brings us back into His Presence by feeding us Himself through a priest.

 

[Famule]

I heard somewhere that a bishop once said that your tongue is no more pure than your hand. Also Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a beautiful defense of the communion in the hand. Either way has beautiful significance if done with full fear and respect of the situation.

One thought that crossed my mind that hit me hard in defense of communion on the tongue is that you cannot give yourself salvation, it is a gift. Granted it is given from a priest either way, but the symbolism is greater on the tongue because you have less control. All you can do in that case is present yourself.

Someone once brought this idea to me as well. We fell through our first parents feeding themselves in order to be like God. Now God brings us back into His Presence by feeding us Himself through a priest.

Well said!
I do want to say. My arguement on Cummunion in the hand is not that our tongue is cleaner than our hands. I just believe that less handling will lead to fewer abuses, and fewer particles lost. There is a reason that Communion patens were introduced and that the priest purifies his hands afterward. If everyone is going to handle the Body of Christ, then everyone should have to perform an ablution before going out and about daily life. Its all about care and respect for the Sacrament. The symbolic things are nice too. There are so many reasons.

 

[NPC]

I came across this article about the reception of Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue. There is an interesting observation about the idea that the Eucharist is a gift and hence we should receive it with our hands - it says that if we do so, we become the extraordinary minister, which can lead to the distortion of the valid ministry of the priest or deacon. This is overall a good article I think which examines the issue in great depth, but I really only mention this as an aside.

To reiterate the point I made in my other posts, I am not making my argument based on the idea that Communion on the tongue is more reverent than Communion in the hand. If a person truly appreciates what (or who) they are receiving in Holy Communion they can show reverence whether they kneel or stand, receive on tongue or in hand. My argument is that the chance of losing even the most miniscule piece of the host is increased by firstly, being held in one’s hand, but increased further by being handled by a further set of hands (the communicant). Note - I am not talking about bigger ‘flakes’ of host, but the tiniest parts which are as much the body of Christ as the host which the priest consumes - pieces which if they were to remain on one’s hand the communicant would likely not notice. It only took one occasion last November for my to decide to receive on the tongue in future, when, after receiving Communion in the hand I happened to notice the tiniest piece of host remained on my hand. Just the thought that this could have happened so many times in the 15 years that I had been receiving in the hand troubled me greatly. We must show reverence for even the smallest part of the host - bear in mind how, out of reverence and fear of losing such particles, the priests of the Tridentine rite would never separate their thumb from their index finger from the time they had consecrated the host until the ablution after Communion.

 

[Famule]

I came across this article about the reception of Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue. There is an interesting observation about the idea that the Eucharist is a gift and hence we should receive it with our hands - it says that if we do so, we become the extraordinary minister, which can lead to the distortion of the valid ministry of the priest or deacon. This is overall a good article I think which examines the issue in great depth, but I really only mention this as an aside.

To reiterate the point I made in my other posts, I am not making my argument based on the idea that Communion on the tongue is more reverent than Communion in the hand. If a person truly appreciates what (or who) they are receiving in Holy Communion they can show reverence whether they kneel or stand, receive on tongue or in hand. My argument is that the chance of losing even the most miniscule piece of the host is increased by firstly, being held in one’s hand, but increased further by being handled by a further set of hands (the communicant). Note - I am not talking about bigger ‘flakes’ of host, but the tiniest parts which are as much the body of Christ as the host which the priest consumes - pieces which if they were to remain on one’s hand the communicant would likely not notice. It only took one occasion last November for my to decide to receive on the tongue in future, when, after receiving Communion in the hand I happened to notice the tiniest piece of host remained on my hand. Just the thought that this could have happened so many times in the 15 years that I had been receiving in the hand troubled me greatly. We must show reverence for even the smallest part of the host - bear in mind how, out of reverence and fear of losing such particles, the priests of the Tridentine rite would never separate their thumb from their index finger from the time they had consecrated the host until the ablution after Communion.

Wonderfully said! My thoughts exactly!

 

[OldRedleg]

I truly admire the extreme devotion of those who receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue.

Several people have referenced Church documents and statements in support of receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand. They have also cited, then Cardinal Ratzinger’s, Pope Benedict’s views on the subject which supports either method of receiving the Eucharist.

Could someone cite an OFFICIAL Church document, Bible verse, Early Church Father writing, or USCCB document, that states or adresses any of the following:

1. Concerns and safeguards to be observed to preclude the chance of losing even the most miniscule piece of the host.
2. We must show reverence for even the smallest part of the host.
3. If everyone is going to handle the Body of Christ, then everyone should have to perform an ablution before going out and about daily life.
4. At what point does the Eucharist cease to be the body and blood of Christ?

There are practical considerations involved based on the response to the above. If “miniscule” is defined as atomic or subatomic particles we have a real issue here in trying to devise appropriate safeguards.

I’m looking for specific Church teachings. Not opinion pieces.

I’m not trying to be sarcastic either. I’m really interested in specific Chruch teachings on this subject.

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s the difference? If they basically have our Eucharistic belief, what’s the div between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation?”
If Roman Catholics are talking about transubstantiation, why not say it?

a) Some people differ in what they mean by “real”. The Church teaches that although other ways in which Jesus may be present to us are also real, the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist is presence par excellence. Not everyone means that.
b) Transubstantion is a particular theory about the Real Presence. There are other theories.

 

[japhy]

1. Concerns and safeguards to be observed to preclude the chance of losing even the most miniscule piece of the host.
2. We must show reverence for even the smallest part of the host.

I believe Memoriale Domini covers those two.

I don’t know about your 3rd. The 4th is probably in Trent’s session on the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[NPC]

I truly admire the extreme devotion of those who receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue.

Several people have referenced Church documents and statements in support of receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand. They have also cited, then Cardinal Ratzinger’s, Pope Benedict’s views on the subject which supports either method of receiving the Eucharist.

Could someone cite an OFFICIAL Church document, Bible verse, Early Church Father writing, or USCCB document, that states or adresses any of the following:

1. Concerns and safeguards to be observed to preclude the chance of losing even the most miniscule piece of the host.
2. We must show reverence for even the smallest part of the host.
3. If everyone is going to handle the Body of Christ, then everyone should have to perform an ablution before going out and about daily life.
4. At what point does the Eucharist cease to be the body and blood of Christ?

There are practical considerations involved based on the response to the above. If “miniscule” is defined as atomic or subatomic particles we have a real issue here in trying to devise appropriate safeguards.

I’m looking for specific Church teachings. Not opinion pieces.

I’m not trying to be sarcastic either. I’m really interested in specific Chruch teachings on this subject.

Firstly the catechism says: “1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”

-Therefore we are not talking about single atomic particles since the host is composed of numerous different atoms which on their own could not be recognised as bread.

I shall continue looking for official teachings on the nature of the smallest parts of the Eucharist, but for the moment I can offer this piece by Origen: (A.D. 244)

“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?”

-According to Origen the Early Christians were right to be careful not to lose the smallest particle of the Eucharist, and right to feel guilty having done so through negligence.

At any rate, if you noticed a small piece of what you knew was the Sacred Host on your hand, would you need an official document to tell you that you should give it due reverence as you did to the piece you had consumed? If you know that the division of the host does not divide the Body of Christ- He is as much present in the crumb on your hand as he is in the host from which it separated - how could you disregard it and let Christ fall to the floor. He wants you to eat His body.

Also, if even the smallest drop of the Precious Blood was to fall on the floor, do you think this would be tolerated- simply ignored since it is only a tiny drop? Absolutely not and great care is taken to ensure this doesn’t happen in the first place. It would be cleared from the floor with great reverence. If the same body of Christ is present in the host as in the Precious Blood, why would we allow any less respect for the host?

 

[EasterJoy]

I truly admire the extreme devotion of those who receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue.

Frankly, considering how often the devotion is used as permission to look down at those who don’t exercise it, I am beginning to tire of it. One hopes these are but a vocal minority.

 

[ethelzguy]

Frankly, considering how often the devotion is used as permission to look down at those who don’t exercise it, I am beginning to tire of it. One hopes these are but a vocal minority.

A-MEN

 

[Lee_M]

Frankly, considering how often the devotion is used as permission to look down at those who don’t exercise it, I am beginning to tire of it. One hopes these are but a vocal minority.

[SIGN]My Thoughts Exactly[/SIGN]

 

[Conservative]

Famule -
Bravo for bringing this up…As for “ablution cups” or washing one’s fingers before/after - I say, the Priest’s hands (not ours) were consecrated to perform Transubstantiation and handling the Sacred Host. While posters have pointed out that Our Lord said “Take and eat” - we have to look at the facts of today’s culture. I’ve seen / heard of incidents as follows:

1. Someone walking away with the Host and having to be chased down by a nun (and in that case I think they took it out of their mouth)…where were they bringing it?
2. People who take Communion in the hands are (I apologize here) clueless as to the respect or the rules dictating how to receive the Blessed Sacrament. I’ve watched - during just one Holy Communion distribution - how no two people do it the same way. There is little care given to the solemnity of the moment - just a grab and run. No hand underneath the hand accepting the Blessed Sacrament, which I think is the norm. And in numerous cases (since this particular situation involved people from various different parish locations), I watched individuals not really sure what they were doing. No two recipients received in like manner. This went from youngsters to the elderly.

What’s so hard about approaching Our Lord with reverence - hands folded - saying, “Amen” and having the Blessed Sacrament administered by the Priest?

Off my soapbox…