Communion in the Hand?

[paperwight]

. So it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ staining the rug not just some wine color. .

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

No, Our Lord cannot stain the carpet! He is the ‘Substance’. The ‘accidents’ - colour, taste, smell etc. of the original wine still remain after Transubstantiation! And it’s those that would stain.

But I gather you are referring to only one church, and even in that case, it was the stains seen after the event. In other words, we still are not being told of Precious Blood being seen by witnesses to be spilt on the carpet, only of a stain which could have been from a dropped cruet when the Mass was being got ready.

Again, regarding fragments being flushed away. You quote from only one church. Hardly enough to make make sweeping generalisations.

 

[sdtouchton]

For those who deny the true presence in the Catholic Holy Eucharist, I must point out two Bible references which fit all of the scoffers perfectly. I have listed each of the two from different Bibles for emphasis:

"But these people, like irrational animals born by nature for capture and destruction, revile things that they do not understand, and in their destruction they will also be destroyed, suffering wrong as payment for wrongdoing.
2Peter 2:12-13, (NAB)

“These false teachers insult what they don’t understand. They are like animals, which are creatures of instinct that are born to be caught and killed. So they will be destroyed like animals and lose what their wrongdoing earned them. These false teachers are stains and blemishes.”
2Peter 2:12-13, (GW)

“But these people revile what they do not understand and are destroyed by what they know by nature like irrational animals. Woe to them! They followed the way of Cain, abandoned themselves to Balaam?s error for the sake of gain, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”
Jude 1:10-11, (NAB)

“Whatever these people don’t understand, they insult. Like animals, which are creatures of instinct, they use whatever they know to destroy themselves. How horrible it will be for them! They have followed the path of Cain. They have rushed into Balaam’s error to make a profit. They have rebelled like Korah and destroyed themselves.”
Jude 1:10-11, (GW)
home.inreach.com/bstanley/symbol.htm

 

[paperwight]

For those who deny the true presence in the Catholic Holy Eucharist, I must point out two Bible references which fit all of the scoffers perfectly. I have listed each of the two from different Bibles for emphasis:
. home.inreach.com/bstanley/symbol.htm

I don’t think anyone here is denying the Real Presence, are they?

 

[Ockham]

Jesus instituted the sacrament of Holy Communion - we are to receive His body. The priest consecrates the host. The most direct and reverent way to receive Jesus within us is directly from the priest’s hand. Our hands are external whereas our tongue is within us.

Luther and the other protestors denied the Real Presence claiming the Holy Eucharist was just a symbol. Because of that they insisted upon communion in the hand.

Whose example should we be following?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

No, Our Lord cannot stain the carpet! He is the ‘Substance’. The ‘accidents’ - colour, taste, smell etc. of the original wine still remain after Transubstantiation! And it’s those that would stain.

But I gather you are referring to only one church, and even in that case, it was the stains seen after the event. In other words, we still are not being told of Precious Blood being seen by witnesses to be spilt on the carpet, only of a stain which could have been from a dropped cruet when the Mass was being got ready.

Again, regarding fragments being flushed away. You quote from only one church. Hardly enough to make make sweeping generalisations.

Your theology is wrong, look at CCC 1377 where it says, “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist”. Therefore the wine IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ that is soaked into the carpet…not wine.

I gave you only one example which you dismiss out of hand. Yet every Church that gives communion in the hand has the problem to one degree or the other. One only needs to look to see. You assertion that the wine was dropped cruet is just that, an assertion. The wine stain was located at the place where the Precious Wine is given at communion time.

I’ve given you the courtesy of answering your questions but you have not returned the favor. Do you know what a Sacrarium is and why it installed in Church’s? What is the logic of doing so unless there is a need to dispose of consecrated species. If it’s just the substance, why not throw it down the drain? Does your parish have one? Do they use it?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[paperwight]

Your theology is wrong, look at CCC 1377 where it says, “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist”. Therefore the wine IS the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ that is soaked into the carpet…not wine.

I gave you only one example which you dismiss out of hand. Yet every Church that gives communion in the hand has the problem to one degree or the other. One only needs to look to see. You assertion that the wine was dropped cruet is just that, an assertion. The wine stain was located at the place where the Precious Wine is given at communion time.

I’ve given you the courtesy of answering your questions but you have not returned the favor. Do you know what a Sacrarium is and why it installed in Church’s? What is the logic of doing so unless there is a need to dispose of consecrated species. If it’s just the substance, why not throw it down the drain? Does your parish have one? Do they use it?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Sorry, I thought your questions as to whether i knew what a sacrarium is or used for were rhetorical. So my answer - yes, I do know, and yes, our church has one, but it is never used, as the ministers who purify the vessels drink the water, so there is no need to pour it anywhere. The second washing the vessels get in the sacristy with water and detergent is a ‘just in case’ for hygiene and to clean off any lipstick.

You have misread : I didn’t ‘assert’ that the stain was a dropped cruet. My words were ‘could have been ,’ a suggestion .

I still think you are confusing ‘accidents’ with ‘substance’, but I will assume that your sentence ‘If it’s just the substance why not throw it down the drain’ was a typo.

No. I didn’t ‘dismiss your one example out of hand’, just pointed out that one example is not enough from which to generalise. If it is, I could just as easily quote back the example of my own church, which has communion under both kinds daily and 5 times on Sunday, and the vast majority of people receiving in their hands, with no problems apart from one or two children turning away before putting the Host in their mouth.

 

[DavidPalm]

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

Obviously the poster’s point was that she could just as easily receive on the tongue rather than have to juggle around and risk dropping either the baby or our Lord.

 

[nomie]

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?

Hi there Palmas85

You are correct, I thought I would do a bit of extra searching and found that article. I knew it was different from my first answer but I was not afraid to bring it up because I thought it could add to the topic. In my RCIA class both methods of receiving were described. They never said one or the other was “better”. What I seemed to feel afterwards it is a personal choice since both methods are valid in the eyes of the Church.

 

[palmas85]

Hi there Palmas85

You are correct, I thought I would do a bit of extra searching and found that article. I knew it was different from my first answer but I was not afraid to bring it up because I thought it could add to the topic. In my RCIA class both methods of receiving were described. They never said one or the other was “better”. What I seemed to feel afterwards it is a personal choice since both methods are valid in the eyes of the Church.

The reason I asked is that I taught RCIA for many years and it was quite common for team members to tell the candidates and catechumans that receiving on the tongue was an old fashioned practice and that receiving in the hand was the proper way to receive. Since I always receive on the tongue this naturally brought up questions from our classes and resulted in more than a few heated debates between the other team members and myself. I was often accused of having a pre Vatican II mentality and not being progressive enough. I guess they thought those were insulting things to say. It is interesting to note though that an overwhelming majority of our catechumans and candidates, knowing about both methods did and continue to choose to receive on the tongue, much to the dismay of the other team members.

I personally feel that people should pay attention to what the Holy Father does and says. I think they could learn a lot from him in the way that he does things. He tends to lead by example.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Sorry, I thought your questions as to whether i knew what a sacrarium is or used for were rhetorical. So my answer - yes, I do know, and yes, our church has one, but it is never used, as the ministers who purify the vessels drink the water, so there is no need to pour it anywhere. The second washing the vessels get in the sacristy with water and detergent is a ‘just in case’ for hygiene and to clean off any lipstick.

You have misread : I didn’t ‘assert’ that the stain was a dropped cruet. My words were ‘could have been ,’ a suggestion .

I still think you are confusing ‘accidents’ with ‘substance’, but I will assume that your sentence ‘If it’s just the substance why not throw it down the drain’ was a typo.

No. I didn’t ‘dismiss your one example out of hand’, just pointed out that one example is not enough from which to generalise. If it is, I could just as easily quote back the example of my own church, which has communion under both kinds daily and 5 times on Sunday, and the vast majority of people receiving in their hands, with no problems apart from one or two children turning away before putting the Host in their mouth.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Sorry, I thought your questions as to whether i knew what a sacrarium is or used for were rhetorical. So my answer - yes, I do know, and yes, our church has one, but it is never used, as the ministers who purify the vessels drink the water, so there is no need to pour it anywhere. The second washing the vessels get in the sacristy with water and detergent is a ‘just in case’ for hygiene and to clean off any lipstick.

You have misread : I didn’t ‘assert’ that the stain was a dropped cruet. My words were ‘could have been ,’ a suggestion .

I still think you are confusing ‘accidents’ with ‘substance’, but I will assume that your sentence ‘If it’s just the substance why not throw it down the drain’ was a typo.

No. I didn’t ‘dismiss your one example out of hand’, just pointed out that one example is not enough from which to generalise. If it is, I could just as easily quote back the example of my own church, which has communion under both kinds daily and 5 times on Sunday, and the vast majority of people receiving in their hands, with no problems apart from one or two children turning away before putting the Host in their mouth.

In my earlier example I mentioned that the stain was at the foot of the place where the Precious Blood is received. It is consecrated…to my earlier point - once a Eucharistic Species always a Eucharistic Species so as long as it subsits (CCC 1377). Since you didn’t respond to this citation I will, for the point of discussion, assume you agree with it. Therefore how can you chance that an alter purification of the vessels is so thorough as to never leave a remnant of the Eucharistic species behind. Even lipstick can contain trace amounts of Precious Blood and small crumbs can be left behind. All Eucharistic vessels should be cleansed in the Sacrarium. What in the world is the point of having a Sacrarium if you don’t use it? Whether or not your realize it you are throwing some amount of Eucharistic species into the sewer system. This is where we part company…it is not acceptable for even a trace amount of Eucharist Species to find its way to the floor, down a drain, etc. You should be horrified at the very prospect.

You said I gave you only one example…well I can give you many more. Thanks for the two you’ve given me so far - children who turn away from the priest before putting the host into their mouths is one and not utilizing the Sacrarium is the second. More examples are not necessary it is the principle we should discuss. There is no question that reception in the hand has lead to many abuses, loss of reverence, etc.

You should talk to your priest and use the Sacrarium for it’s intended purpose.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[paperwight]

In my earlier example I mentioned that the stain was at the foot of the place where the Precious Blood is received. It is consecrated…to my earlier point - once a Eucharistic Species always a Eucharistic Species so as long as it subsits (CCC 1377). Since you didn’t respond to this citation I will, for the point of discussion, assume you agree with it. Therefore how can you chance that an alter purification of the vessels is so thorough as to never leave a remnant of the Eucharistic species behind. Even lipstick can contain trace amounts of Precious Blood and small crumbs can be left behind. All Eucharistic vessels should be cleansed in the Sacrarium. What in the world is the point of having a Sacrarium if you don’t use it? Whether or not your realize it you are throwing some amount of Eucharistic species into the sewer system. This is where we part company…it is not acceptable for even a trace amount of Eucharist Species to find its way to the floor, down a drain, etc. You should be horrified at the very prospect.

You should talk to your priest and use the Sacrarium for it’s intended purpose.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I have already explained to you that the ministers drink the water that is used to purify the vessels. I’d have thought that was even better than pouring it down a sacrarium, where particles could get caught in the pipework.

Traces of the Precious Blood in lipstick smears? Are you serious?

 

[tobiashope]

Since I returned to the church in the mid-eighties I have found Our Lord on the floor of chuch numberous times. Both Host and Precious Blood. For centuries the church used the tongue method. There is currently a Vatican Comission investegating this matter. I think returning to the tongue method would protect Our Lord from this abuse. Also it has been on the net of a professor who took a Host and drove a nail in it. The Host is also used in Black Masses (Satanic) to disacreate.
Some Things to Think about
Tobiashope

No disrespect is intended and I certainly do not intend to insult or offend anyone, especially among the very Traditional, but why is the Communion in the Hand issue so big? Having been an Anglican/Episcopalian for a little while before becoming Catholic (or being in the process of becoming Catholic), maybe my views are clouded in Communion in the Hand is the norm in most Anglican parishes (or at least the ones I have been in).

I understand the need for respect obviously, but how is Communion in the Hand disrespectful? In terms of avoiding dropping the Blessed Sacrament, it would seem Communion in the Hand is the better way.

I know Mother Theresa and others have commented strongly on it, but it seems that today, it is a valid way to receive the Blessed Sacrament, regardless of how the custom may have started. To me, it seems like the issue of Communion in the Hand versus on the Tongue is just a way to promote unnecessary (and apparently vicious) division.

 

[Ceil-1]

David, and malphono,

Neither of you have the right to make personal observations of Paul VI, or any of the leaders of the Church, for that matter. Such observations hurt your credibility where other matters are concerned. You do not have the authority to do so, and, frankly, sound foolish in attempting it.

I used to get upset at this continuous pontificating by those who exclusively attend the Latin Mass. It seems these matters are an excuse to critcize and malign anyone and everyone and everything they dislike in this or that venue. Very tiresome. But, I’ve learned to just chuckle it off.

 

[malphono]

David, and malphono,

Neither of you have the right to make personal observations of Paul VI, or any of the leaders of the Church, for that matter. Such observations hurt your credibility where other matters are concerned. You do not have the authority to do so, and, frankly, sound foolish in attempting it.

I used to get upset at this continuous pontificating by those who exclusively attend the Latin Mass. It seems these matters are an excuse to critcize and malign anyone and everyone and everything they dislike in this or that venue. Very tiresome. But, I’ve learned to just chuckle it off.

**Excuse me??? **

Oh but I could so easily turn your second paragraph around and shoot it back, but why bother? Not worth wasting my time.

 

[Ceil-1]

Yes, well, we all need to be put in our place from time to time. It’s good for the soul.

 

[malphono]

Yes, well, we all need to be put in our place from time to time. It’s good for the soul.

Isn’t it, though?

 

[Ceil-1]

Perhaps I could have said it more charitably?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I have already explained to you that the ministers drink the water that is used to purify the vessels. I’d have thought that was even better than pouring it down a sacrarium, where particles could get caught in the pipework.

Traces of the Precious Blood in lipstick smears? Are you serious?

I am trying to explain to you that drinking the water after swishing it around in the vessel and then drying it with a linen cloth is completely insufficient. Throughout the world there are about 500,000 masses celebrated each day. This would say that there are at least 500,000 and probably well over a million vessels that must be purified every singe day. And with the Novus Ordo mass, there are (in my opinion) too many Extra Ordinary Ministers distributing communion so there are well over a million people handling vessels everyday. Are you suggesting that all these vessels are satisfactorily purified on the alter? Are you suggesting that no Precious Blood is spilled on the floor or hosts dropped? Clearly the answer is no. So the whole purpose of a Sacrarium is to perform this purification function to assure that the Eucharistic Species is put directly into the ground under the Church and no place else. The use of a Sacrarium is approved by the Church. It was developed for this purpose because the Church recognizes that the vessels are not always 100% clean. So those parishes that choose to ignore purification via use of the Sacrarium have lost the recipe.

You must be a bachelor (LOL). All manner of stuff gets caught up in a woman’s lipstick so darn toot’in I’m serious about precious blood being trapped in lipstick. I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen a lady blot her lips, check in her mirror to make sure her lipstick is there, not smudged and her lips are clean following a meal.

I also had to laugh at your concern about a particle of host being caught in the pipes of the Sacrarium since you don’t seem to have a similar concern about that same particle(s) getting washed down the drain into the sewer system. I thought maybe you were pulling my leg, were you?

If you truly believe that we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer…don’t you think you should act with an abundance of caution to protect the Eucharistic Species from desecration? The best way to do so is through communion on the tongue and a carefully thought out process to purify the vessels, clean up dropped Hosts, spilled Precious Blood etc.

By the way did you know that receipting of communion in the hand is an indult? This was not promoted by Vatican II but was born of disobedience in Europe.

Did you know that Pope Benedict gives communion only on the tongue?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Auntie_M]

I think if all would go back a really read church history, you will find that communion in the hand was the original way. Only when it was discovered that some were not eating the host right then but taking it home and at times even descrating it, that communion on the tongue was begun. This way the priest could see the host being eaten.
It had nothing to do with being more reverent. Back then. (way before Vat. 11 or Pius V or X), they chose to “follow” Jesus’ instruction. At the last supper, Jesus never gave the bread “on the tongue”, he handed it to his apostles.

If Jesus was ok with handing it to his apostles, then we should be also. This has been a molehill made into a mountain. Do you think Jesus is “happy” that there is soooo much confusion and arguing about his body and blood.

I really think not.