Communion in the Hand?

[Ockham]

Father Z is taking a poll on this topic: www.wdtprs.com

That Holy Communion was distributed in the hand by the early Christians does not prove its legitimacy. As Father Z asks, consider.

 

[paperwight]

I followed the Father Z. link, and I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe those photographs (of fragments left behind on a black glove after having an altar-bread on the hand as an experiment).

I’ve just experimented with black fabric and shaking a pile of talcum-powder (as the most friable and fragment-prone substance I could think of), into my hand and not even that had the same result.

I simply don’t accept that placing a Host in the hand would produce the ‘dust’ that the photo shows. The person with the gloves must have rubbed their hands together to produce that result, and surely nobody is suggesting that a communicant does that?

Someone is being dishonest here, it seems to me, which discredits the whole site, in my opnion.

 

[Shin]

I followed the Father Z. link, and I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe those photographs (of fragments left behind on a black glove after having an altar-bread on the hand as an experiment).

I’ve just experimented with black fabric and shaking a pile of talcum-powder (as the most friable and fragment-prone substance I could think of), into my hand and not even that had the same result.

I simply don’t accept that placing a Host in the hand would produce the ‘dust’ that the photo shows. The person with the gloves must have rubbed their hands together to produce that result, and surely nobody is suggesting that a communicant does that?

Someone is being dishonest here, it seems to me, which discredits the whole site, in my opnion.

I don’t know -what- you even mean by experimenting with talcum powder since it already is a powder, but I think you’ll find that choosing between the honesty of -you- and Fr. Z is an easy task for most people.

 

[Ockham]

II’m sorry

I hope you truly are sorry for making such an outrageous accusation.

Someone is being dishonest here.

Indeed. I don’t know how often you accuse a priest of lying, but I hope you have better grounds next time.

 

[paperwight]

I hope you truly are sorry for making such an outrageous accusation.

Indeed. I don’t know how often you accuse a priest of lying, but I hope you have better grounds next time.

Who is accusing a priest of lying? The site clearly says that the photographs had been sent in by somebody, not that Father Z. had taken them himself.

 

[maryjk]

I followed the Father Z. link, and I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe those photographs (of fragments left behind on a black glove after having an altar-bread on the hand as an experiment).

I agree, and I receive on the tongue!!

How did the fragments end on the the thumb? And on the fingers? If the host is placed in the palm, and the other hand takes it out to place it on the tongue, how did the fragments end up all over the hand?

 

[Shin]

I think you need to reread what you said, what you actually said.

There are further comments about this matter on the site I will note – other people are backing up the glove from their own experiences.

Since it is after all, simple common sense, basic physics. Or perhaps not so common now.

 

[paperwight]

I think you need to reread what you said, what you actually said.

There are further comments about this matter on the site I will note – other people are backing up the glove from their own experiences.

Since it is after all, simple common sense, basic physics. Or perhaps not so common now.

I have re-read what I wrote, and still stand by it.

Now how about you tell me what you think I have said, which you object to so much?

 

[Shin]

I have re-read what I wrote, and still stand by it.

Now how about you tell me what you think I have said, which you object to so much?

I’ve said what I have to say, and that is clear and easy to understand. But I think you a fundamental problem with communicating with people… in that you are so needful of having them think a particular way you don’t pay attention to what you are actually saying, nor the actual evidence, at least that is the kindest interpretation I can put on it.

 

[paperwight]

I’ve said what I have to say, and that is clear and easy to understand. But I think you a fundamental problem with communicating with people… in that you are so needful of having them think a particular way you don’t pay attention to what you are actually saying, nor the actual evidence, at least that is the kindest interpretation I can put on it.

Come, come, that really isn’t good enough.

Chapter and verse, please, otherwise I shall begin to think that your communication skills aren’t too good, either.

You really can’t go making accusations without evidence, you know.

 

[passivesquid]

it feels as if ive stumbled into a war zone in here. are we not all good christians and catholics? why is this so big a deal? i receive communion on the tongue, its how i was raised,i was taught in religous ed to take it in the hand, but my mother told me to take it on the tongue. and i do believe that (well for me anyways) there is more of a feeling of reverence that way. but the right way for me to wroship isnt the the right way for some one else to worship. im pro option here. i have my views but i also respect others views. i think we should have the option here. i really dont think there is a wrong or right way here, no one can tell you if you have afeeling of reverence or not. as long as you treat it respectfully and with reverence, there shouldnt be a problem. thats just my two cents.

have squidly day:thumbsup:

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Dear Mike

Where on earth is the Catholic Church you are describing??? I have been to Catholic NO Churches in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia (and some Latin masses in these areas also) and have never seen a “stampede” nor have I ever seen people “talking or not having their hands folded” in the communion line. Nor have I ever seen the Eucharist anywhere except in the front of the church.

Let me correct you on your Catholic history “tradition”. Communion in the hand WAS the original way. When it was discovered that some people were not eating the host right then but taking it home and even some descrating it. That is when the practice of on the tongue began.

Also, the veils…women were asked to wear them Not for the reason you give, but because there was too much gossipping going on between the women. The veils covered the side of their faces eliminating most of the talk going on.

The ONLY time I have ever seen a priest “sit” while giving out communion was when he was sitting in a wheel chair.

What you ae describing is certainly NOT a “Typical NO mass”. I don’t know where you are getting your info but it is definitely not correct.

The NO masses I have gone to are just as reverent today as they always have been.
The Latin mass is very pretty with all the bells and whistles, but it is not the only way, and I’m sorry you feel that way.

Dear Auntie,

If you haven’t seen some of the above all I can say is you aren’t watching. I’ve gone to a lot of masses both inside and outside America…there is a huge variation in reverence from place to place. And what I am describing can be seen, to one degree or another, everywhere…just look.

I don’t accept your correction re: veils. Veils were not introduced to stop women from gossiping. The wearing of the veil is scripture based and if you look them up you will find there are many reasons the veil was worn but gossiping is not one I’ve ever seen. Up until Vatican II wearing of the veil was included in the Canon. After Vatican II it was not recinded but was simply left out of the Canon as unnecessary because tradition would carry on. St. Paul wrote and talked on this subject with sufficiency and it is easy to find.

I never argued that communion in the hand was not the original way. I argue that that way was abandoned for the reason you stated as well as some others. Today it is not the most reverent way to receive communion. Just today…I watched as an alter server received the Precious Blood and then, with her right hand, wiped her lips. I happen to know her CCD teacher and gave him a heads up. He said he’d take care of it. Just today I witnessed people approaching communion with their hands at their sides, gazing around etc. Just today I watched people leave the pews and follow behind the priest by just one or two paces (that’s the stampede I’m talking about).

With respect that the NO is as reverent today as it ever was isn’t true. Over the years litugical innovations and abuses have crept into the NO so that today’s NO, if anything, is less reverent today than when it was introduced.

Please don’t feel sorry for the way I feel because I feel great. As I said in my previous post I accept Vatican II and the NO. But Vatican II did not order communion in the hand. This practice was born of disobedience in Holland following Vatican II and spread accordingly; so it began as an innovation and even now it is only an indult. Vatican II did not order the removal of the communion rails. Vatican II did not order the relocation of the Tabernacle. Confession by appointment only was never ordered by Vatican II. Abandoning the tradition of wearing the veil was no ordered by Vatican II. Finally, Vatican II did not order women to abandon the tradition (small t) of wearing the veil. These innovations and as play a big part for the decline in respect, reverence for the mass and belief in the Real Presence, even by some clergy.

I attend both the Tridentine Mass and the NO mass (around Iowa and Nebraska) and I’ve seen what I have seen.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[elts1956]

it feels as if ive stumbled into a war zone in here. are we not all good christians and catholics? why is this so big a deal? i receive communion on the tongue, its how i was raised,i was taught in religous ed to take it in the hand, but my mother told me to take it on the tongue. and i do believe that (well for me anyways) there is more of a feeling of reverence that way. but the right way for me to wroship isnt the the right way for some one else to worship. im pro option here. i have my views but i also respect others views. i think we should have the option here. i really dont think there is a wrong or right way here, no one can tell you if you have afeeling of reverence or not. as long as you treat it respectfully and with reverence, there shouldnt be a problem. thats just my two cents.

have squidly day:thumbsup:

Or…“Who’s on first?”

 

[Abbadon]

If the person giving the sacrament on the other end happens to be someone of the opposite sex who is attractive would it not be best to receive in the hand to prevent sinning?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Dear Mike

Where on earth is the Catholic Church you are describing??? I have been to Catholic NO Churches in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia (and some Latin masses in these areas also) and have never seen a “stampede” nor have I ever seen people “talking or not having their hands folded” in the communion line. Nor have I ever seen the Eucharist anywhere except in the front of the church.

Let me correct you on your Catholic history “tradition”. Communion in the hand WAS the original way. When it was discovered that some people were not eating the host right then but taking it home and even some descrating it. That is when the practice of on the tongue began.

Also, the veils…women were asked to wear them Not for the reason you give, but because there was too much gossipping going on between the women. The veils covered the side of their faces eliminating most of the talk going on.

The ONLY time I have ever seen a priest “sit” while giving out communion was when he was sitting in a wheel chair.

What you ae describing is certainly NOT a “Typical NO mass”. I don’t know where you are getting your info but it is definitely not correct.

The NO masses I have gone to are just as reverent today as they always have been.
The Latin mass is very pretty with all the bells and whistles, but it is not the only way, and I’m sorry you feel that way.

We attend Mass in the South & unfortunately have seen folks being irreverent in line for Communion, but it isn’t the norm at N.O. Masses.Our particular parish is fairly conservative in form, but kind of lackadaisical in practice.The only thing folks here take seriously is St. Patrick’s Day.
I prefer the Latin Mass & being able to receive Holy Communion kneeling.
I do have concerns with folks, though, who tend to be “holier” than the pope.
The manner in which you receive Communion helps you to receive reverently.I think the manner in which we receive the Eucharist at the Latin Mass enables us to receive more reverently & helps us to better appreciate the sacredness of the Sacrament.

 

[mullenpm]

I grew up in the Church before V2 and taking Holy Communion on the tongue was the way it was done; it would not be possible for me to take the Host in my hand. Frankly, I don’t understand why that even started. I don’t ever take the Host from a EMHC either. I make sure I am in the line where the Host is distributed by the Priest.

Annie M. I don’t know what time period you are talking about when you say taking the Host in the hand was the ORIGINAL way to receive Holy Communion. Not in the US before V2, it was not. We always knelt at the altar rail and received on the tongue.

Of course, I would prefer if we knelt at the altar rail again. Then there would be no problem. We would not need the EMHCs because one Priest and an altar boy could handle everyone just like they did in the OLDEN days when the churches were packed with people.

The Holy Father said that his preference is for the Communicants to kneel to receive the Host on the tongue and that is the way it is done when the Holy Father is the Celebrant of Mass.

I did view on EWTN one Mass where the Holy Father was the Celebrant and, as usual, at Communion a kneeler was placed in front of the Holy Father and Communicants knelt and took the Host on the tongue; except for one woman who evidently did not get the message.

She tried to push the platen away from in front of her but the server was stronger and he did not budge. She did look puzzled as though she did not know what was happening, but she did take the Host on her tongue. I wonder what would have happened if she had stuck out her hands from under the platen?:harp:

 

[mullenpm]

Aunti M, your statement about the reason women wear veils is the silliest thing I have heard.

Before V2, women wore HATS to church. We covered our heads out of respect for the House of God and that is the reason we still should cover our heads; not because we are attending a Pauline Mass and/or a Tridentine Mass. I don’t know how many times it must be said. A MASS IS A MASS.

Of course women wore veils in ancient time; that was the style of clothing in those days. The Blessed Mother wears a veil.

I began to wear a veil when I went to Rome in 1962 on a Carmelite pilgramage - actually they were preparing at the Vatican for V2 to begin.

I wore a veil because I bought a beautiful mantilla in Spain and have worn it ever since (actually not the same one I bought in 1962) but veils are easier than hats.

I also do not understand the constant argument that the Pauline Mass is less reverent than the Tridentine Mass. People keep calling the Tridentine Mass - the Latin Mass, but we have a Pauline Mass at my church celebrated in Latin.

I have never been to a Pauline Mass where people chatted in the Communion line, but I will admit that people in this age do not understand that they should bow their heads when they return to their pew and say prayers of thanksgiving for the privilege of receiving the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[maryjk]

II did view on EWTN one Mass where the Holy Father was the Celebrant and, as usual, at Communion a kneeler was placed in front of the Holy Father and Communicants knelt and took the Host on the tongue; except for one woman who evidently did not get the message.

Maybe she couldn’t kneel. And she should wear a sign so everyone gets the message.

After 3 years of not being able to kneel and having people give me dirty looks, I am tired of people assuming that everyone can kneel. Or that every one wants to. Since the Holy Father allowed her to receive, that must mean that it she allowed to receive while standing.

I can kneel now. But for 3 long years, I couldn’t. Not and get back up. And yes, I am young enough to kneel. But knee problems stopped me from doing it. And yes, even if I had been receiving from the Holy Father. Unless he had two strong men standing next to him, to help me up.

 

[Ockham]

Here’s another experiment. Remember that Jesus lives in every particle.

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/hand-in-glove-02-another-communion-in-the-hand-experiment/

 

[palmas85]

Dear Mike

Where on earth is the Catholic Church you are describing??? I have been to Catholic NO Churches in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia (and some Latin masses in these areas also) and have never seen a “stampede” nor have I ever seen people “talking or not having their hands folded” in the communion line. Nor have I ever seen the Eucharist anywhere except in the front of the church.

Let me correct you on your Catholic history “tradition”. Communion in the hand WAS the original way. When it was discovered that some people were not eating the host right then but taking it home and even some descrating it. That is when the practice of on the tongue began.

Also, the veils…women were asked to wear them Not for the reason you give, but because there was too much gossipping going on between the women. The veils covered the side of their faces eliminating most of the talk going on.

The ONLY time I have ever seen a priest “sit” while giving out communion was when he was sitting in a wheel chair.

What you ae describing is certainly NOT a “Typical NO mass”. I don’t know where you are getting your info but it is definitely not correct.

The NO masses I have gone to are just as reverent today as they always have been.
The Latin mass is very pretty with all the bells and whistles, but it is not the only way, and I’m sorry you feel that way.

Gossiping?

Thats a good one.