Communion in the hand

[una_fides]

I’m not attacking his writings. I just asked if he was infallible. He was not a pope or bishop and receiving on the tongue being more reverent than on the hand is an opinion. He could never make that a fact. You cant judge one’s heart and know how reverent they are being by receiving by mouth or the hand. I was taught to receive on the hand and I do believe that I am receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is the same with Mother Theresa. I’ve read her comment several times but it doesn’t make it infallible.

There’s the thing. You were taught to receive on the hand, and you are now defending what you have been practicing, which is merely what you were taught to do. What if you were taught that receiving on the tongue was superior to receiving on the hand, the reasons for which have been pointed out on this thread numerous times:

1. No problem of consecrated particles that can stick to your hand or fall to the ground
2. Less likelihood for abuses
3. CITH without proper catechesis has lead to a decrease in faith in the Real Presence
4. It is a part of the liberal agenda of those who do not believe in the Real Presence to promote CITH to further their cause
5. It’s recent introduction began and is rooted in rebellion against the Church authority.

I may have missed something, but you get the idea…

It’s not objectively wrong to receive CITH as long as one does so with the correct intentions. But it is better and much safer and more in line with the universal law and practice of the Church to receive on the tongue.

 

[una_fides]

Okay, it is easier.
Maybe even much easier.
We should be on guard against it. But since the Bishops knew that it would be easier, they issued the warning with the indult.

Which means they knew it could be a problem. They still issued the indult. What is the question here? We shouldn’t trust our Bishops? We shouldn’t trust the Church?..

Just because the Church permits something does not even ensure that the thing being permitted is a good thing. In Catholic countries, the Church permits heretics to teach and spread their lies, which they have no God-given right to do and which is objectively wrong and leads souls to hell, yet the Church permits it out of a desire for the greater good to be accomplished or a greater evil avoided. In the case of CITH, it is not objectively sinful, but the Church knew the dangers that were present. As I pointed out earlier, Pope Paul VI felt like his hands were tied, as many were practicing CITH out of rebellion to the law of the Church, and from what I’ve read, those in charge of the liturgy in that region were ready to go ahead with it on a wide scale. So rather than create a possible schism over the issue, Pope Paul VI permitted it to take place, against his better wishes. Pope John Paul II was also not fond of CITH, but permitted it again likely for the same reasons. The argument can also be raised that it was a primitive Church practice during times of persecution to receive CITH, though they did so with much more reverence in the manner in which they received, which is not how it is done at all today. But because it was primitive it could also have been looked at as an ecumenical tool to try to make protestants more comfortable with the Catholic liturgy.

 

[maryjk]

yes i wash my hands as efficiently as i can when my husband is out of town and i have to juggle 4 children with me crammed into a one bathroom stall that does not have a changing table and since most of the time i have to go to mass in a chapel in a hospital it is a very long walk.

and if that is the most disgusting part you found from what i wrote i am sorry for you

What I thought was disgusting was that after you change a diaper during Mass, you then potentially shake hands with others, hold your child’s hand and potentially receive from the cup, all without washing your hands. Sorry but that is disgusting.

What is ridiculous is that you think others do it too and think that receiving on the tongue is the solution.

The solution is to teach the Real Presence to Catholics.

But even that will not stop non-Catholics from receiving. Nor will it stop people from the desecration of the Host. When everyone received on the tongue, there was still desecration of the Host.

The theory here is that Catholics are taking the Host, in their hand, and doing terrible things to it. That by requiring everyone to receive on the tongue would stop that from happening. Problem is, I would think that most of those actions are being committed by non-Catholics.

 

[una_fides]

Communion on the tongue has been Church law for over a thousand years for a reason. If you do not believe in the Real Presence, then why would you want to receive Communion on the tongue? It just wouldn’t make sense. Why have someone come close to (or in some cases actually) putting their finger in your mouth? If it’s just common bread, then wouldn’t it make more sense to just put it in the person’s hand so they can feed themselves? Absolutely. And this is why liberals who deny the Real Presence are pushing for CITH. It is a vehicle by which they can continue their liberal agenda of denying the Real Presence of Christ. CITH is a step in the direction towards that end. Many protestants stay sitting in their pews and pass around little crackers or break off pieces of bread. That is the direction in which those liberals want to go. Many bishops and even cardinals have also become aware of the dangers that come with a lack of proper catechesis.

The scales in the Church are shifting back to more clearly revere tradition and end abuses. I believe it’s only a matter of time before the Holy Father finally puts an end to this little experiment once and for all. Obviously he knows that priests will continue and persist to give out CITH regardless if he prohibits it, just like they did before. But many more priests will not and the abuses will begin to diminish. The Holy Father wishes the Traditional Latin Mass to be in every single parish in order to bring about this fixing of the liturgy and the proper implementation of Vatican II, which he has said has never even yet been implemented! Let us continue to pray for the Holy Father and his intentions. And let liberals everywhere be confounded. Amen.

 

[weepixie71]

What I thought was disgusting was that after you change a diaper during Mass, you then potentially shake hands with others, hold your child’s hand and potentially receive from the cup, all without washing your hands. Sorry but that is disgusting.

What is ridiculous is that you think others do it too and think that receiving on the tongue is the solution.

The solution is to teach the Real Presence to Catholics.

But even that will not stop non-Catholics from receiving. Nor will it stop people from the desecration of the Host. When everyone received on the tongue, there was still desecration of the Host.

The theory here is that Catholics are taking the Host, in their hand, and doing terrible things to it. That by requiring everyone to receive on the tongue would stop that from happening. Problem is, I would think that most of those actions are being committed by non-Catholics.

ok, what part of i wash my hands did you not get… i repeat i wash my hands: my word i thought we were all mature enough to know better so i didnt put in the whole potty process. but like you said the thought is still gross. all im saying is it doesnt feel right to stand in line to receive Christ in my hands when 15min ago i was wiping baby booty.

in our mass we do not shake hands at our mass
we do not share from a cup. i find these things in a mass offensive!

and their are people who do not like Catholics. and it is a fact that devil worshipers do go into catholic masses where the consecrated host is put into the hands to leave with it and do horrible things to it… i think it is very wrong of the priests to not protect the host better when the option of putting the host in the mouth is available. it may not stop it totally but it would sure make it harder.

 

[una_fides]

To those who receive Communion in the hand:

Here’s a question to ask yourself. If the Holy Father tomorrow removed the indult permitting CITH in the US and Canada, would you still stick your hand out to receive Communion if you saw other people in your parish doing it and being served?

You don’t have to answer. I suspect most of you on here would obey the Holy Father’s orders, but I’m sure there’s some possibly even on this thread who would try to receive in the hand anyway. If you would in that instance, please speak up!

Realize you do not have a right to receive Communion in the hand. It is a special exception to the rule and to the universal practice of the Catholic Church, which is to receive on the tongue. It can be taken away at any moment and likely and hopefully will be in the near future to help reduce the abuses and confound the liberal cause, which ultimately is the destruction of the Church and her teachings.

 

[Frosty]

in our mass we do not shake hands at our mass
we do not share from a cup. i find these things in a mass offensive!

.

Why on earth would you say that you find the sharing of the cup offensive? I do not inderstand this statement at all. Does not the Consecration consist of both the Body and Blood of Christ? Is not the Real Presence in both ? Or do you only think that the Real Presence is to be found only in the Communion Host?
Think about it.

 

[una_fides]

But even that will not stop non-Catholics from receiving. Nor will it stop people from the desecration of the Host. When everyone received on the tongue, there was still desecration of the Host.

The theory here is that Catholics are taking the Host, in their hand, and doing terrible things to it. That by requiring everyone to receive on the tongue would stop that from happening. Problem is, I would think that most of those actions are being committed by non-Catholics.

No one is saying that it will STOP the abuses. But it will certainly REDUCE them. Many non-Catholics go up for Communion and don’t know what they are doing, so they see everyone receiving in the hand, and they do too, but those who don’t see the point in eating it may stick the consecrated hosts in their pocket and then throw it away later. Yes, bishops have reported this as happening. Granted it would be also a terrible thing if they received Communion at all, but that’s another problem with the lack of catechesis. In the years I’ve been Catholic, I still have never even heard one priest warn Catholics that if they have committed grave sin, they are not to receive the Body of Christ without prior sacramental confession. On a few instances, I’ve heard a priest tell people not to receive if they are not Catholic and these were at large gatherings but again no mention of Catholics who do not even practice their faiths and attend maybe twice a year or Catholics who commit other grave sins… Oh the sins of omission now-a-days are really adding up.

 

[weepixie71]

because sharing of the cup was supposed to be used for only special occasions like weddings, first communion etc
not every sunday.
i think it takes away from the body and BLOOD of Christ being the host. especially since the priest just says Body of Christ.

 

[The_Smiter]

Why on earth would you say that you find the sharing of the cup offensive? I do not inderstand this statement at all. Does not the Consecration consist of both the Body and Blood of Christ? Is not the Real Presence in both ? Or do you only think that the Real Presence is to be found only in the Communion Host?
Think about it.

I do not think that the poster was saying that the reception of the Precious Blood was offensive - only that sharing the vessel that contains it is offensive (I think a better word might have been ‘unsanitary’ rather than ‘offensive’).

However, I have seen just as many abuses when receiving from the cup as I have with CITH. People wiping thir mouth with a sleeve or tissue. Some of the Precious Blood dripping down their chin and onto their garment. Some even falling to the floor, which at my parish is unfortunately covered with carpet. With respect to the floor issue, the EMHCs do care for the ‘clean up’ properly, but the damage has been done.

Without sounding too ‘old school’ and chiding toward the practice, I believe that having the Eucharist AND the Precious Blood available to all lay people during Mass is a vanity that we expect to participate in because since the priest receives both, then we should as well.

The full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is present in both species after consecration. I very rarely hear anyone at church referring to the Eucharist as such or the the Precious Blood as such. They are the ‘wafer’ or simply ’ communion’ (which I guess is not so bad), or the ‘wine’. It makes me wonder if they even believe in the Real Presence. I know that the RP is downplayed in our RCIA program, even though many converts from Protestantism state that the RP is exactly WHY they are desirous of becoming Catholic.

The ultimate point is that the offering of the Precious Blood to all at Mass in unnecessary and presents FAR more opportunity for abuse than CITH does (although I am not a fan of CITH either). So if, as you state, by your inference in your post, that the Boby, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ IS present in both species, why do we need both? If th Eucharist suffices, then why is it not sufficient? I think we should look at our lack of faith, penchant for desire and put our passions in order with respect to the reception of Holy Communion. Do we NEED the Precious Blood if we have the Eucharist, or is it simply a WANT that we think we are being denied?

 

[Frosty]

I do not think that the poster was saying that the reception of the Precious Blood was offensive - only that sharing the vessel that contains it is offensive (I think a better word might have been ‘unsanitary’ rather than ‘offensive’).

However, I have seen just as many abuses when receiving from the cup as I have with CITH. People wiping thir mouth with a sleeve or tissue. Some of the Precious Blood dripping down their chin and onto their garment. Some even falling to the floor, which at my parish is unfortunately covered with carpet. With respect to the floor issue, the EMHCs do care for the ‘clean up’ properly, but the damage has been done.

Without sounding too ‘old school’ and chiding toward the practice, I believe that having the Eucharist AND the Precious Blood available to all lay people during Mass is a vanity that we expect to participate in because since the priest receives both, then we should as well.

The full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is present in both species after consecration. I very rarely hear anyone at church referring to the Eucharist as such or the the Precious Blood as such. They are the ‘wafer’ or simply ’ communion’ (which I guess is not so bad), or the ‘wine’. It makes me wonder if they even believe in the Real Presence. I know that the RP is downplayed in our RCIA program, even though many converts from Protestantism state that the RP is exactly WHY they are desirous of becoming Catholic.

The ultimate point is that the offering of the Precious Blood to all at Mass in unnecessary and presents FAR more opportunity for abuse than CITH does (although I am not a fan of CITH either). So if, as you state, by your inference in your post, that the Boby, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ IS present in both species, why do we need both? If th Eucharist suffices, then why is it not sufficient? I think we should look at our lack of faith, penchant for desire and put our passions in order with respect to the reception of Holy Communion. Do we NEED the Precious Blood if we have the Eucharist, or is it simply a WANT that we think we are being denied?

Having grown up being able to recieve under only one species I would have no problem going back to that practice. In fact, I have only received from the Cup once myself in all these years. There is no particular reason or ideology for why I have not, only that I am basically a creature of habit,
What I do object to is anyone saying that they find receiving from the Cup offensive.

 

[daeve]

I cannot see the RCC letting you receive Communion in your hand if it was a sin. It just does not add up.

Those are exactly my thoughts. There have been a lot of discussions on this issue and women’s heads being covered and holding hand during the Our Father. And people keep saying that it was wrong when it started and just never stopped.

It seems to me that if these things were wrong, the Pope would say STOP IT. I figure the priests, the bishops, the cardinals and the Pope all know more than I do and if I was doing something wrong – along with a whole lot of other people – they’d tell us to stop doing it.

When the day comes that Father Murphy says kneel down and open your mouth, I’ll do my best to comply. My knees don’t work, but I’ll give it a shot. I’m sure the other members of the choir will hoist me back up. When he says get out your old chapel veil, I’ll have to buy a new one, but I will do it. I’m going to trust them to tell me I’m supposed to be doing.

I forgot to mention this but I’ve received Communion for Archbishop Raymond Burke twice in the hand, once at my cousin’s funeral (he was a monseigneur, and I’m sorry if I spelled that wrong) and once at a dedication at my parish. Since he’s the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and president of the Commission for Advocates, I would assume he thought it was ok.

 

[pnewton]

So if, as you state, by your inference in your post, that the Boby, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ IS present in both species, why do we need both? .

We do not need both, but it is a fuller sign. One could receive jsut the Eucharist, or just the cup and receive everything. Or both.

I believe a valid argument could be made that both ought not be offered, at least on a regular basis. However, that is the decision, right now, of the local bishop.* If* both are offered though, the argument against receiving both because of potential abuse is non-existant. Those that weigh such things are not going to be ones to abuse the Sacrament.

I believe the same hold true as to receivng communion in hand. The arguement against deliberate abuse may hold some validity that the choice ought not be offered. But when it is, that arguement only holds validity to those who intend to abuse the Holy Sacrament or are careless.

 

[weepixie71]

Having grown up being able to recieve under only one species I would have no problem going back to that practice. In fact, I have only received from the Cup once myself in all these years. There is no particular reason or ideology for why I have not, only that I am basically a creature of habit,
What I do object to is anyone saying that they find receiving from the Cup offensive.

receiving from the cup isnt the problem. serving the cup when it is not supposed to is the problem.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

receiving from the cup isnt the problem. serving the cup when it is not supposed to is the problem.

But according to the GIRM in the adaptations for the United States, communion under both species may be offered at any Mass. Thus, there is never a time “when it is not supposed” to be given.

Deacon Ed

 

[una_fides]

I do not think that the poster was saying that the reception of the Precious Blood was offensive - only that sharing the vessel that contains it is offensive (I think a better word might have been ‘unsanitary’ rather than ‘offensive’).

However, I have seen just as many abuses when receiving from the cup as I have with CITH. People wiping thir mouth with a sleeve or tissue. Some of the Precious Blood dripping down their chin and onto their garment. Some even falling to the floor, which at my parish is unfortunately covered with carpet. With respect to the floor issue, the EMHCs do care for the ‘clean up’ properly, but the damage has been done.

Without sounding too ‘old school’ and chiding toward the practice, I believe that having the Eucharist AND the Precious Blood available to all lay people during Mass is a vanity that we expect to participate in because since the priest receives both, then we should as well.

The full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is present in both species after consecration. I very rarely hear anyone at church referring to the Eucharist as such or the the Precious Blood as such. They are the ‘wafer’ or simply ’ communion’ (which I guess is not so bad), or the ‘wine’. It makes me wonder if they even believe in the Real Presence. I know that the RP is downplayed in our RCIA program, even though many converts from Protestantism state that the RP is exactly WHY they are desirous of becoming Catholic.

The ultimate point is that the offering of the Precious Blood to all at Mass in unnecessary and presents FAR more opportunity for abuse than CITH does (although I am not a fan of CITH either). So if, as you state, by your inference in your post, that the Boby, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ IS present in both species, why do we need both? If th Eucharist suffices, then why is it not sufficient? I think we should look at our lack of faith, penchant for desire and put our passions in order with respect to the reception of Holy Communion. Do we NEED the Precious Blood if we have the Eucharist, or is it simply a WANT that we think we are being denied?

I agree with you that the Precious Blood should not be available to the laity and that abuses do result from that as well. However, I still think CITH is a much more serious problem. Granted some drops will spill and such, but CITH guarantees the same problems with particles as well. The real difference is the CITH results in it being much easier for people to bring the Eucharist home with them to then defile it or abuse it. Some non-Catholics will put it in their pocket out of sheer ignorance. CITH also is part of the liberal agenda to de-sacramentalize the Mass and to remove faith in the Real Presence. Right now, they are winning the battle as far as pew research is concerned; however, we at least know that our faith tells us that we will win the war despite the difficult battles we must fight in the process.

 

[una_fides]

So I just thought of another problem with offering the cup that I experienced first hand. Back when I used to attend Novus Ordo masses regularly, I brought a protestant friend of mine to mass. He saw me receive just the Eucharist but not drink from the Cup. He then asked why I did not receive all of Jesus and only received his Body. I explained, but he was from a presbyterian background (which denies the RP anyway) and he could not understand. I have a feeling that many Catholics today due to a lack of proper catechesis may be falling into the same protestant mentality.

 

[alih]

traditional catholics do not receive communion under both bread and wine. it simply is not necessary as jesus resides body, blood, soul and divinity in either. have a good year. (alih)

 

[The_Smiter]

Having grown up being able to recieve under only one species I would have no problem going back to that practice. In fact, I have only received from the Cup once myself in all these years. There is no particular reason or ideology for why I have not, only that I am basically a creature of habit,
What I do object to is anyone saying that they find receiving from the Cup offensive.

Then we are in agreement. I just think that the poster chose a poor word by using the term “offensive.” I am giving them the benefit of the coubt that they were simply referring to the hygenic issues that come from the sharing of a community vessel.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[The_Smiter]

We do not need both, but it is a fuller sign. One could receive jsut the Eucharist, or just the cup and receive everything. Or both.

I believe a valid argument could be made that both ought not be offered, at least on a regular basis. However, that is the decision, right now, of the local bishop.* If* both are offered though, the argument against receiving both because of potential abuse is non-existant. Those that weigh such things are not going to be ones to abuse the Sacrament.

I believe the same hold true as to receivng communion in hand. The arguement against deliberate abuse may hold some validity that the choice ought not be offered. But when it is, that arguement only holds validity to those who intend to abuse the Holy Sacrament or are careless.

I disagree with your supposition that it is not our decision or responsibility (by authority of the bishop) to limit (? - looking for a better word but could not think of one) reception of the Eucharist or the Precious Blood. It is precisely that abuses DO and WOULD occur that we have a responsibility to care for the species after consecration. Just because an abuse is not deliberate does not make it any less greivous. In fact I would think that it might be easier to prevent deliberate abuse than it would to prevent accidental abuse. Accidents can be limited by being careful and safe, but by the nature of them being accidents , they will happen. Deliberate abuse can be guarded against and rectified with ecumenical discussion and proper teaching.

I just do not see the need for both species being needed. I also grew up with just one species being offered and it was never a problem.

And your statement that receiving both species is a “fuller sign” is doublespeak. If a single species holds the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, then why would both species be a “fuller sign”? If I am missing something here I would like to know!

Thanks for the response.