Communion in the Hand?

[palmas85]

That’s cool. I am not here to change anyone’s mind. A question was asked so I gave an answer.

Below is an article which may shed some light on the Vatican’s view. I think there is info in it for each side of the debate.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802805.htm

From the article it would appear that the idea that the practice was instituted to stop souvernir taking does not come close to being the truth. I’m curious. You said this particular idea was put forth by an RCIA staffer. In RCIA did they describe both methods of receiving or indicate that one or the other was the correct way?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

All

What is the debate all about? The results are in…since the practice of receiving communion in hand was introduced:

• abuse of the host abounds
• believe in the real presence has fallen below 30%
• handling of the sacred vessels in many parishes is a complete disgrace
• some parishes don’t have a Sacrarium the precious blood and fragments of host are simply flushed down into the sewer
• Precious blood stains can be seen on the carpet

I could go on and on and on and on…

Go ahead and argue about the minutiae if you want, communion in the has been a disaster.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[SourGrape]

I truly do believe that soon our Holy Father will no longer allow Holy Communion to be given in the hand. JPII, when visiting abroad, "refused to do it in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See."

Blessed Mother Teresa also voiced her dislike over reception of Holy Communion in the hand:

I** will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”**4

Moreover, we have the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist" (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

(Italics my own emphasis).

Source: catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[maryjk]

All

What is the debate all about? The results are in…since the practice of receiving communion in hand was introduced:

• abuse of the host abounds
• **believe in the real presence has fallen below 30%
• handling of the sacred vessels in many parishes is a complete disgrace
• some parishes don’t have a Sacrarium the precious blood and fragments of host are simply flushed down into the sewer
• Precious blood stains can be seen on the carpet**

I could go on and on and on and on…

Go ahead and argue about the minutiae if you want, communion in the has been a disaster.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

The question is, how do you conclude that Communion in the hand is the cause of these abuses? Couldn’t it also be poor catechesis?
How can communion in the hand be the cause of Precious blood stains on the carpet?
How can communion in the hand be the cause of Precious blood being dumped down the sink?
How can…Well, I could go on, but you get my point.

I believe in the Real Presence and until very recently, received in the hand. The only reason I started receiving on the tongue is because I started to receive the low-gluten Host. It is very brittle. Lots of little bits. And I receive only a piece of the Host, which makes it hard to not have little bits.

 

[paperwight]

All

What is the debate all about? The results are in…since the practice of receiving communion in hand was introduced:

• some parishes don’t have a Sacrarium the precious blood and fragments of host are simply flushed down into the sewer
• Precious blood stains can be seen on the carpet

Iowa Mike

When exactly are the Precious Blood and fragments flushed down into the sewer? Are you saying that you have seen vessels being taken into the Sacristy without being purified first i.e. rinsed with water by a minister which is then drunk? Are you saying that you have seen partly full chalices not being emptied? How often? In every church I have been in all over the world, I have never seen purifying not taking place. In how many churches have you seen this flushing taking place, as a matter of interest?

Where exactly have you seen carpet with Precious Blood stain? Did you see it happen? Are you sure it is Precious Blood and not just wine? And surely a stain is caused by the ‘accidents’ not the substance, so even if it were consecrated, it is not Our Sacramental Lord staining the carpet, just the colour of the wine?

 

[Ceil-1]

I have to agree with maryjk, not taking anything away from our traditionalist friend. He is assuming that anyone who takes it in the hand does so out of some disobedience to… someone.

But, the fact of the matter is, I learned to take Communion on the tongue, then later was shown, by the priest, how to take it in my hand. I was a child and I did what I was told. They never told me Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus. I had to figure that one out for myself.

CIH, as you put it, may be the symptom of the overall irreverence and lack of catechesis. But, the fact of the matter is, it was dictated to us by the Church. We did not come up with it ourselves.

Now that we have come to the Truth and know better, we may wish to return to the old way, but, the way it is administered makes it riskier to do so. It is less obtrusive, and more discreet to take it in the hand, in these circumstances.

I don’t think I like the implication that people who take CIH are somehow less holy and reverent. I know extremely holy and reverent who take CIH. They are concerned with pleasing the Lord, not looking over their shoulder at the next guy and pointing fingers. I think this is a good lesson for all of us. Unless the Church says otherwise, we are not even permitted to judge a person’s soul based on our own opinions. This is an imperfection, a flaw, as St. Teresa would describe it.

 

[DavidPalm]

I don’t think I like the implication that people who take CIH are somehow less holy and reverent.

So far I have seen primarily evidence offered that certain ways of taking Holy Communion are less holy and reverent, not that the people are. I fully agree that individuals can receive Holy Communion in the hand in a reverent manner. But what the Church found many, many centuries ago and what at least the Latin Rite is in the (totally unnecessary) process of learning again, when introduced as a general custom receiving in the hand most certainly is less reverent and holy. For the many reasons laid out by none other than Pope Paul VI (but I repeat myself ).

 

[Extempore]

So far I have seen primarily evidence offered that certain ways of taking Holy Communion are less holy and reverent, not that the people are.

And, when people are catechized that taking Communion in the hand is the only proper way to do so, the blame seems to lie with those who have taught them and not the people themselves. Yet, people are quick to take offense when what they are “comfortable” with is questioned. And yet, the issue really has nothing to do with the people themselves. It has everything to do with the priest and the reverence of the Mass.

Once again, improper catechism lies at the heart of the matter.

 

[maryjk]

It is funny to think that people that receive in the hand are more reverent than those that receive on the tongue.

I sit in the front of the church. After I receive, I pray, then I sing along with the choir. During that time, I see many people receive.

I have seen
people genuflect then receive in the hand
people receive on the tongue, then wave to someone they know seated along side of me.
people receive in the hand, place it in their month, receive from the Cup, clasp their hands in prayer and walk that way back to their seat
people receive on the tongue then walk past the Precious Blood as though it is just a cup of wine

I have also seen
people receive in the hand and pop it in their mouth like a tick tack
people talking to others in the communion line, receive Communion in the hand, then go right back to talking
people carrying children in one hand, and receive in the other hand

It is over the entire spectrum of reverent vs. non-reverent and from what I see, it has nothing to do with receiving in the hand or on the tongue.

 

[malphono]

So far I have seen primarily evidence offered that certain ways of taking Holy Communion are less holy and reverent, not that the people are. I fully agree that individuals can receive Holy Communion in the hand in a reverent manner. But what the Church found many, many centuries ago and what at least the Latin Rite is in the (totally unnecessary) process of learning again, when introduced as a general custom receiving in the hand most certainly is less reverent and holy. For the many reasons laid out by none other than Pope Paul VI (but I repeat myself ).

As usual, I agree with you in principle, although I would make one minor clarification: *certain ways of taking Holy Communion are less holy and reverent, not that the people necessarily are less reverent. *

DavidPalm:

Pope Paul VI gave excellent reasons why the traditional practice of the whole Church was to be retained. Indeed, he stated explicitly that “This method of distributing holy communion must be retained”. Can you please tell us why you find his reasons non-persuasive? It is not enough to say that he permitted the alternative. Both he and his successor are on record as suggesting that they were too lax in their discipline.

The problem I have with Paul VI and his successor on this particular issue is that, despite all that they said about the practice, they sat back and did absolutely nothing to stop it. Yes, reception on the tongue was/is the official norm, but they allowed the practice to continue. Paul VI likely because the power of Villot, Bugnini, & Co.would have made it nearly impossible for him to do so. His successor likely because he didn’t want to offend the various bishops conferences.

 

[maurin]

The problem I have with Paul VI and his successor on this particular issue is that, despite all that they said about the practice, they sat back and did absolutely nothing to stop it. Yes, reception on the tongue was/is the official norm, but they allowed the practice to continue. Paul VI likely because the power of Villot, Bugnini, & Co.would have made it nearly impossible for him to do so. His successor likely because he didn’t want to offend the various bishops conferences.

That says something about them. Like the lamp under the bushel.

 

[cswalters]

It was brought up earlier that in 2000 the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview concerning reception in the hand:,

I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion

Strange that now, nine years later **AND ** as the leader of the Catholic Church, this same man, requires that those receiving from him do so kneeling and on the tongue.

The reason for this was a while back someone went to the communion line where Pope Benedict XVI was distributing the most blessed sacrament and this person kept the host instead of consuming it, and tried to sell it on Ebay, luckily someone in the Knights of Columbus bought it and did consume it. So for this reason I believe, one can not receive communion in the hands when the Holy Father is passing out communion is because the Church doesn’t want another incident like this. My source was from EWTN Radio, I believe it was on Open Line that they talk about this.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The question is, how do you conclude that Communion in the hand is the cause of these abuses? Couldn’t it also be poor catechesis?
How can communion in the hand be the cause of Precious blood stains on the carpet?
How can communion in the hand be the cause of Precious blood being dumped down the sink?
How can…Well, I could go on, but you get my point.

I believe in the Real Presence and until very recently, received in the hand. The only reason I started receiving on the tongue is because I started to receive the low-gluten Host. It is very brittle. Lots of little bits. And I receive only a piece of the Host, which makes it hard to not have little bits.

Answers:

I agree people are poorly catechized.

Communion in the hand has led to a lost of respect and reverence for and believe in the real presence. Sadly people, including some clergy, treat the host accordingly - after all it’s just a cookie or a little wine.

When the ‘way too many’ extra ordinary ministers spill wine on the carpet, it is not cleaned up.

When the precious blood is sometimes spilled elsewhere during mass, it is cleaned up with a cloth. If the Church does not have a Sacrarium what do you think happens to the precious blood?

If a host is dropped somebody simply scoops it up and takes it and things move along as usual. Do they get all the pieces?

Maybe you can explain why belief in the real presence is declined from 70% to below 30%? Or why some chuches no longer have any sacramentals in them and others don’t have a Sacrarium? I’d love to hear a believeable explanation.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

When exactly are the Precious Blood and fragments flushed down into the sewer? Are you saying that you have seen vessels being taken into the Sacristy without being purified first i.e. rinsed with water by a minister which is then drunk? Are you saying that you have seen partly full chalices not being emptied? How often? In every church I have been in all over the world, I have never seen purifying not taking place. In how many churches have you seen this flushing taking place, as a matter of interest?

Where exactly have you seen carpet with Precious Blood stain? Did you see it happen? Are you sure it is Precious Blood and not just wine? And surely a stain is caused by the ‘accidents’ not the substance, so even if it were consecrated, it is not Our Sacramental Lord staining the carpet, just the colour of the wine?

Your post is a perfect example of what I mean. Once the host or wine is consecrated it is changed forever into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Other than consuming them the only way to dispose of them is in a Sacrarium. So it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ staining the rug not just some wine color. And yes, accidents happen with consecrated wine and hosts.

Even when vessels are purified on the alter they are then taken back into the sacristy and washed. If you want to listen to Father Corapi’ he has preached on this subject and uses himself as a witness of finding inadequately purified vessels containing host and wine remnants in the sacristy which he then washed and put the residue down the Sacrarium.

In Minnesota my sister and brother-in-law have seen the precious blood stains on the carpet…they brought the matter to the attention of a deacon who seemed amazed. The Church did not have a Sacrarium. Does yours?

Why do you think a Sacrarium is installed in a Church in the first place?

Iowa Mike

 

[DavidPalm]

As usual, I agree with you in principle, although I would make one minor clarification: certain ways of taking Holy Communion are less holy and reverent, not that the people necessarily are less reverent.

Fair enough.

The problem I have with Paul VI and his successor on this particular issue is that, despite all that they said about the practice, they sat back and did absolutely nothing to stop it. Yes, reception on the tongue was/is the official norm, but they allowed the practice to continue. Paul VI likely because the power of Villot, Bugnini, & Co.would have made it nearly impossible for him to do so. His successor likely because he didn’t want to offend the various bishops conferences.

Oh absolutely. As Michael Davies has pointed out, the greatest irony is that in the very document in which Pope Paul VI laid out all the excellent reasons not to change the Church’s universal discipline, he laid out the steps by which it could (and would) be changed. Sheesh!

Look, let’s just say it openly. It need not scandalize anybody, it’s just stating an obvious fact. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II were weak disciplinarians. There, I’ve said it. Let’s say it again wiht gusto. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II were weak disciplinarians. Heck, they both said so themselves for crying out loud. There’s no scandal in just admitting it. They had their strengths, but disciplining their children wasn’t one of them. And what do you get when you refuse to discipline your children? A family full of spoiled brats. Just what we’ve got.

 

[abort73catholic]

It is funny to think that people that receive in the hand are more reverent than those that receive on the tongue.

I sit in the front of the church. After I receive, I pray, then I sing along with the choir. During that time, I see many people receive.

I have seen
people genuflect then receive in the hand
people receive on the tongue, then wave to someone they know seated along side of me.
people receive in the hand, place it in their month, receive from the Cup, clasp their hands in prayer and walk that way back to their seat
people receive on the tongue then walk past the Precious Blood as though it is just a cup of wine

I have also seen
people receive in the hand and pop it in their mouth like a tick tack
people talking to others in the communion line, receive Communion in the hand, then go right back to talking
people carrying children in one hand, and receive in the other hand

It is over the entire spectrum of reverent vs. non-reverent and from what I see, it has nothing to do with receiving in the hand or on the tongue.

People can be reverent and irreverent either way. Does the fact that someone receives in the hand vs. the tongue make them a bad Catholic?

No.

Is it a certainty that someone receiving Communion in the hand is somehow disrespecting the Body of Christ?

No.

Can someone receiving on the tongue be just as irreverent as someone receiving in the hand?

Yes.

 

[Ocarm]

Blessed Mother Teresa also voiced her dislike over reception of Holy Communion in the hand:

I** will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand**.”

I realise that this quotation has been doing the rounds for many years now, and that ultimately whether it was said or not is unprovable, but the MCs themselves have indicated that it is inconsistent with Mother Teresa’s respect for church authority, which very obviously does permit the practice.

On a more personal level, I spent nearly a year in Calcutta during 1990-91 and attended morning mass at the MC motherhouse; and on a daily basis, Mother - or if she was away visiting other houses, one of the senior sisters - would act as a eucharistic minister and give communion in either the hand or on the tongue as the communicants chose.

Certainly she and the sisters always received on the tongue, but I believe she had far too much integrity to collude with something that she felt was ‘the worst problem in the world today’. It pains me to see people use her memory as a bludgeon with which to unsubtly win an argument. Mother’s life and witness are worth more than that.

 

[malphono]

Fair enough.

Oh absolutely. As Michael Davies has pointed out, the greatest irony is that in the very document in which Pope Paul VI laid out all the excellent reasons not to change the Church’s universal discipline, he laid out the steps by which it could (and would) be changed. Sheesh!

Look, let’s just say it openly. It need not scandalize anybody, it’s just stating an obvious fact. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II were weak disciplinarians. There, I’ve said it. Let’s say it again wiht gusto. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II were weak disciplinarians. Heck, they both said so themselves for crying out loud. There’s no scandal in just admitting it. They had their strengths, but disciplining their children wasn’t one of them. And what do you get when you refuse to discipline your children? A family full of spoiled brats. Just what we’ve got.

Yep, “spare the rod and spoil the child” in spades. I’m agreeing and I’m saying along with you … but oh! I can just hear the clamor now …

I always found it interesting that when PP Pius XII relieved Mgr Montini of his duties in the Secretariat of State, he named him to be Archbishop of Milan. It could have been any see in Italy (or elsewhere or, for that matter, nowhere) but it was Milan. The See of St Ambrose. The most important in Italy after Rome. And once there, this Piemontese-become-Milanese, began a concerted effort to restore and purify the glories of the ancient Ambrosian usage. How could it happen that such a strong defender of tradition end up to be so weak in so many ways? Paul VI was never on my list of favorites, but I will say that I think he was a victim (perhaps the main individual victim) of Villot, Bugnini & Co.

 

[elts1956]

Communion in hand in the USA is every bit as “viable” as communion in the mouth.

Catholics that use this mode of transportation for the Eucharist deem it viable; I’m not saying it’s not. From what I have read though, every Catholic receiving in the hand was not the intention of the Vatican. Perhaps asking your Bishop or Pastor about this would clear it up. I am only repeating what I have read.

I went along with the practice too until recently. Now I receive on the tongue. I am the only one at Mass that does so. I like to shake things up a bit once in awhile.

 

[paperwight]

It is funny to think that people that receive in the hand are more reverent than those that receive on the tongue.

II have seen

 people carrying children in one hand, and receive in the other hand

.

Excuse me? What exactly is wrong with that? Do you think the mother should lay the baby down on the floor, then?