Communion in the Hand

[keepitreal]

So who was the first to receive the most Holy Eucharist in the hand? It would seem to be Joseph.

Isn’t that amazing? We are restored to the first, if we want. But we don’t have to. Why the argument?

Well, that’s a very good summary - the clearest I’ve heard/seen.

It’s called the Church “learning”. The Mass and other Sacraments does things due to its experience (organic development). It “learned” through trial and error and experience that Communion in the hand had to die out. And it did, until our “enlightened” times, the “Springtime” VII. The Church now doesn’t need the lessons of the past since relevance and getting rid of all those “medieval encrustations” is all the rage. We must “restore” the liturgy and get back to the first Mass in the upper room. What a nightmare!

 

[palmas85]

So who was the first to receive the most Holy Eucharist in the hand? It would seem to be Joseph.

Isn’t that amazing? We are restored to the first, if we want. But we don’t have to. Why the argument?

I don’t recall that Joseph was even at the Last Supper, so I somehow doubt that he was the first to receive in that fashion.

 

[dcrowmik]

If you receive communion in your hand, the next few times you do so take a close look in your hand after consuming the Host – you might be surprised and concerned at what you see.

Ever since the 1980’s I have received communion in my hand. A few months ago, however, for whatever reason, I began looking in my hand afterwards and was concerned at seeing a small residual speck or two or more of the Sacred Host in my hand. Imagine the thousands of times I have gone to commuinion over the years and those specks having eventually fallen from my hands. Needless to say, I don’t receive communion in my hand anymore.

Please make the effort to notice. Depending on the type of Host your parish uses, whether it is one of the “harder” or “softer” kind, you might immediately see what I am talking about, or you might notice next week, or the wekk after. In any case, once you do see the remnant in your hand, what are you going to do?

 

[eggplant911]

Joseph was not at the Last Supper.

He was at the birth of the Holy Child, and undoubtedly helped Mary deliver Christ Himself, into his hands.

Isn’t that the Eucharist?

 

[bcuster]

I take a slightly different take when people wonder why things have changed during the life of the Church. I believe it is because man himself has changed, not the Church. And as the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, there may have been a reason we went to Communion on the tongue, and a reason we went to Communion in the hand. Maybe the Holy Spirit has guided the Church in her changes due to the changes that have occured on earth.

Should the Church go back to on the tongue, then I can only assume it is due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe the Church is erring in any shape or form or leaning away from her divine mission. I think she is going along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and so I go along with the Church.

You speak rightly, wise one. The Church has promulgated this practice. It is the choice of the communicant to receive on the tongue or in the hand. I, for my part, will obey the Church.

 

[gjfain]

To any reader who is interested, go to the bottom (or maybe the top)of this thread and click on the original catholic encyclopedia link. Click on the letter C at the top of the page. Page through the C’s to Cyril of Jerusalem. Read 3rd para. 5th line, which begins: Then comes the “Sancta Sanctis”, read to the end of the para. Then goto the last Para. which begins " St Cyril’s teaching on the Blessed Sacrament. read to the end. Then Please!! stop arguing about how to receive Holy Communion, just Thank Jesus and receive as often as you are able, any way His Church says you may do so. P.S. Read the whole article it is worth it.

 

[elts1956]

You speak rightly, wise one. The Church has promulgated this practice. It is the choice of the communicant to receive on the tongue or in the hand. I, for my part, will obey the Church.

Our Parish Priest told me recently that we may receive communion either on the tongue or in the hand. Whether we receive it on the tongue or in the hand we should thank the Lord God for such a GIFT for we DESERVE neither to receive the Body of Christ on the Tongue or in the Hand.

It is also my understanding that Communion in the Hand was not promulgated by the Vatican itself, nor was it intended to develop in the way it did. Some Bishops decided this was the way it was to be and it was. I can never figure out who has more power, the individual Bishops, or Congregation of Biships, or Rome? It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[scylla]

It is also my understanding that Communion in the Hand was not promulgated by the Vatican itself, nor was it intended to develop in the way it did. Some Bishops decided this was the way it was to be and it was. I can never figure out who has more power, the individual Bishops, or Congregation of Biships, or Rome? It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

If you talk about things in a spiritual way, the Pope has more power, but if you look at things in a material, strategic way the Bishops have more power. Without God the Bishops have more power as they can ignore the Pope to their own perdition, influence people and help destroy the faith of millions.

The natural reaction to God is to kneel, unfortunately as I said before many do not believe in God or that God is present at Mass, so kneeling is not necessary. Since they do not believe it they do not express it or want to have others express it as it exposes unbelief. When we do things wrong we enjoy company to reassure us that we are not so bad. So abuses are propagated and people seek ways to excuse their actions.

Just because something is allowed does not make it good. I am “allowed” or actually required to go to confession at least once a year. Is it good to do the least, the minimum?

If we really believe in God do we act like it in our actions at Mass?

What distinguishes us from other religions in the world?
We are the religion God created Himself and He makes Himself present at Mass, do we act like it?

I believe most people who are for communion on the tongue want to express their belief in God being present and their reverence for Him by kneeling and receiving as most Catholics in history have done after reflecting on the magnitude of the gift we are given.

As the Church developed its method of expressing the faith through our actions one of the things that developed was expressing our faith in Christ’s Presence by receiving kneeling on the tongue and this is what some people want to express.

I have heard no good objection to this other than an expression of liberty or self affirmation.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[bpbasilphx]

He was at the birth of the Holy Child, and undoubtedly helped Mary deliver Christ Himself, into his hands.

According to tradition, he had gone to fetch a midwife named Solomonia, when everything around him froze for a second. When they returned the Child was born.

Isn’t that the Eucharist?

**No. The Eucharist has the appearance of bread and wine to the senses.

If the senses perceive blood, flesh, or anything else, then it’s not the Eucharist.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For 900 years, receiving was done standing and in the hand.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book, God is near us. Below, I repost excerpts from that book.:

“Well, first of all, I would like to say that both attitudes are possible, and I would like therefore, to ask all priests to exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person; and I would further like to ask you to exercise the same tolerance and not to cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it…”

“But you will ask: is tolerance the proper answer here? Or is it not misplaced with respect to this most holy thing? Well, here again we know that until the nineth century Communion was received in the hand standing… the Church could not have possibly been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years.”

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

No one can see into another’s heart to know or ‘judge’ reverence.

Can one truly be focused on the Mass when they are concerned with how others are receiving?

To say one receiving in the hand is not showing the proper reverence reminds me of Luke 18:10-14:

Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

[palmas85]

For 900 years, receiving was done standing and in the hand.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book, God is near us. Below, I repost excerpts from that book.:

No one can see into another’s heart to know or ‘judge’ reverence.

Can one truly be focused on the Mass when they are concerned with how others are receiving?

To say one receiving in the hand is not showing the proper reverence reminds me of Luke 18:10-14:

Quite true. It was also taken home for consumption during the week. So in those times receiving in the hand made perfect sense. In fact it could not have been done otherwise.

But since the Eucharist is no longer taken home as it was then what is the reason for receiving in the hand today?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Quite true. It was also taken home for consumption during the week. So in those times receiving in the hand made perfect sense. In fact it could not have been done otherwise.

But since the Eucharist is no longer taken home as it was then what is the reason for receiving in the hand today?

Why could it not have been done otherwise?

 

[palmas85]

Why could it not have been done otherwise?

How else could you have carried it home? If you received on the tongue, which would have been quite a feat in the early Church since what was received was a loaf and not a wafer, you would have either had to take It out of your mouth and put It in your hands or carried It all the way home hanging from your mouth.

No, reception in the hand in those days actually had a valid reason behind it. Today it does not. But if anyone out there can give me a good reason I’ll be glad to listen. So far no one has been able to but who knows, maybe one day.

 

[MinnesotaBorn]

I receive the Eucharist in my hands. I cup them protectively and am aware that it is Christ himself that I am about to receive. My friend, Marge, receives the consecrated host on her tongue, because she doesn’t want anything between her and the Eucharist, when she receives it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How else could you have carried it home? If you received on the tongue, which would have been quite a feat in the early Church since what was received was a loaf and not a wafer, you would have either had to take It out of your mouth and put It in your hands or carried It all the way home hanging from your mouth.

No, reception in the hand in those days actually had a valid reason behind it. Today it does not. But if anyone out there can give me a good reason I’ll be glad to listen. So far no one has been able to but who knows, maybe one day.

I think the Eucharistic minister has more to do with reception than most recipients. For example, on a recent visit to the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, in Hanceville, Alabama, I attended a Mass in the chapel below the Shrine. It was evident that reception was at the rail, kneeling and on the tongue. I say it was evident as everyone lined up and knelt at the rail, and they used a paten held by a server as one of the priests distributed the host.

The next day, I attended a small Catholic Church in town. Distribution was standing, but it was evidently to be distributed on the tongue as a server immediately placed the paten below each recipients chin.

At my parish, they do not use patens and a lot of the time the host is given by a Eucharistic minister, who acts unsure of how it’s going to be received.

When there is not a paten, I cup my hands together.

Believe me, I have the utmost reverence in my heart for receiving the Lord sacramentally.

Other concerns expressed by posters that I don’t agree with, is forcing one to go one way or the other. I try not to observe what others are doing, as I try to remain as focused on the sacrament as fully as humanly possible.

There are elderly people, or people with health reasons that cannot easily kneel.

Also, I wear dentures. If a paten is not in use and a Eucharistic minister appears to be unsure or maybe nervous, I prefer to cup my hands to prevent a ‘slip’ at a very bad time.

I had an in-depth discussion with one priest one time about the lack of a paten. He told me how there was a lack of hygiene from distribution on the tongue. He also said some people close their mouths early, catching his fingertips or at the very least causing his fingers to be wet with saliva. Who am I to try and correct a priest? I tried as charitably as possible, but it was evident he wasn’t going to listen to me on the subject.

I have tried to explain this as best as possible so some might see there are reasons for reception in the hand that are not a lack of reverence.

I really have wondered whether people are ‘judging’ myself or others for the style of reception. What would be worse, me receiving in my hand with reverence in my heart, or the person judging me as not being reverent during communion?

 

[elts1956]

I receive the Eucharist in my hands. I cup them protectively and am aware that it is Christ himself that I am about to receive. My friend, Marge, receives the consecrated host on her tongue, because she doesn’t want anything between her and the Eucharist, when she receives it.

Now I know at least one reason I have switched from “in the hand” to “on the tongue”. I see nothing wrong with receiving the Host in the hand, but I couldn’t quite understand why I switched???

 

[palmas85]

I think the Eucharistic minister has more to do with reception than most recipients. For example, on a recent visit to the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, in Hanceville, Alabama, I attended a Mass in the chapel below the Shrine. It was evident that reception was at the rail, kneeling and on the tongue. I say it was evident as everyone lined up and knelt at the rail, and they used a paten held by a server as one of the priests distributed the host.

The next day, I attended a small Catholic Church in town. Distribution was standing, but it was evidently to be distributed on the tongue as a server immediately placed the paten below each recipients chin.

At my parish, they do not use patens and a lot of the time the host is given by a Eucharistic minister, who acts unsure of how it’s going to be received.

When there is not a paten, I cup my hands together.

Believe me, I have the utmost reverence in my heart for receiving the Lord sacramentally.

Other concerns expressed by posters that I don’t agree with, is forcing one to go one way or the other. I try not to observe what others are doing, as I try to remain as focused on the sacrament as fully as humanly possible.

There are elderly people, or people with health reasons that cannot easily kneel.

Also, I wear dentures. If a paten is not in use and a Eucharistic minister appears to be unsure or maybe nervous, I prefer to cup my hands to prevent a ‘slip’ at a very bad time.

I had an in-depth discussion with one priest one time about the lack of a paten. He told me how there was a lack of hygiene from distribution on the tongue. He also said some people close their mouths early, catching his fingertips or at the very least causing his fingers to be wet with saliva. Who am I to try and correct a priest? I tried as charitably as possible, but it was evident he wasn’t going to listen to me on the subject.

I have tried to explain this as best as possible so some might see there are reasons for reception in the hand that are not a lack of reverence.

I really have wondered whether people are ‘judging’ myself or others for the style of reception. What would be worse, me receiving in my hand with reverence in my heart, or the person judging me as not being reverent during communion?

I don’t judge. I merely point out that at one time there was actually a valid reason to receive in the hand. As I have said, I have yet to hear a valid reason for it today. When the abuses and lack of reverence got to be too much, the Church stopped the practice.

I venture to say that one day they will do so again.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t judge. I merely point out that at one time there was actually a valid reason to receive in the hand. As I have said, I have yet to hear a valid reason for it today. When the abuses and lack of reverence got to be too much, the Church stopped the practice.

As Cardinal Ratzinger stated, it was that way for 900 years.

I venture to say that one day they will do so again.

Wouldn’t it be that way today had the Bishops agreed with the practice in the first place?

 

[elts1956]

I don’t judge. I merely point out that at one time there was actually a valid reason to receive in the hand. As I have said, I have yet to hear a valid reason for it today. When the abuses and lack of reverence got to be too much, the Church stopped the practice.

I venture to say that one day they will do so again.

In the Early Church, communion of course, was received in the hand. Then it was noticed that some people were using this as a means to desecrate the Host/Bread. It was so easy to slip it into the pocket or a fold of cloth and remove it from the Church. I don’t know when communion in the hand became the mode, but today one can receive our Lord either way.

 

[elts1956]

In the Early Church, communion of course, was received in the hand. Then it was noticed that some people were using this as a means to desecrate the Host/Bread. It was so easy to slip it into the pocket or a fold of cloth and remove it from the Church. I don’t know when communion in the hand became the mode, but today one can receive our Lord either way.

I meant to say, I don’t know when Communion on the Tongue came into use. Sorry about that.