Communion in the Hand?

[PaulinVA]

I empathize with you Paul as I’m six foot and worried one of these days a shorter priest is going to fumble. It’s not a nice situation we are in these days. Hopefully the history books will look back at these post-Vatican II years as some chaotic mess that took awhile and much difficulty to correct. It’s easier to dumb down than to smarten up so the road ahead will be arduous indeed.

Without an EF Mass you are forced into one of three options: receive in hand like the Protestants do, on tongue while standing, or take a knee. This does draw attention to yourself, but ask yourself if that’s such a bad thing. Perhaps you will lead by example and soon after everyone will choose to receive the Lord while showing this respect.

When Christ died for our sins and instituted the Sacrament, he was stripped naked, nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns on his sacred head. If He was willing to bring that kind of attention on Himself for us, then isn’t bending a knee to receive Him the least we can do?

Yes, I’m also a six footer. My wife, an EMHC (reluctantly), is a foot shorter and is one of those people who would have trouble reaching up.

One of the things I try to do, as I increase in holiness (and hopefully humility ) is to pull people along with me. Actually, my wife pulls me and I try to pull others. Catholics nowadays are so sensitive to “holier than thou” actions and attitudes that those among us who are trying to do the right thing always risk setting ourselves apart and having people discount us due to our attitude, instead of following our lead. I don’t want to make a stand and create conflict.

There are a lot of people in NO parishes who are doing the best they can to follow the Church. As I’ve said before, my parish has a “worship center” and so there is a built in lack of reverence. We are not happy, but we can’t agree on building a new church, either.

Yesterday, I received on the hand. I just couldn’t bring myself to lick my hand to get any flakes or pieces.

Thank you for your advice. I actually have been thinking a lot about the discussions here, even if I may be a bit argumentative at times.

 

[keyboardrob]

Again, I’ve read most of the recent posts in this thread.

Like I said in one of my own earlier posts- take the reverence and awe out of Divine Liturgy (what many of you call the Mass) and you lose all sense of belief in and power of the Eucharistic Lord- his Real Presence among us.

As I read these posts I recalled what the late Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of Genoa said about the so-called reforms of Vatican II- that it would take centuries for Holy Mother Church to recover from the heresies launched by that Council. It’s interesting to know that rumor has it that Siri nearly edged out JPII in the second conclave of 1978.

Also worth noting is that here in my home Diocese the Tridentine Mass is growing in use, is standing room only on a regular basis, and attendees are mostly my age (51) and younger. Is there a message in this? There just might be!

 

[diggerdomer]

Bishops once sold indulgences. Did that make it right? If you could go back in history and convince them otherwise ahead of Luther would you do it? Bishops in Holland started this Communion in hand craze just as the Protestants do. Does that make it right?

Indulgences are still a part of Catholic tradition. You might think they’re right or wrong, but they exist. The practice and understanding of them has developed over time, yes. If that means the Church was wrong in your mind in the past, ok, you can think that.

No, it’s not bishops in Holland that make the current teaching right, it’s the Magisterium of the Church that makes it right.

You are free to receive on the tongue or by hand. So am I. Both are acceptable. This is not my opinion, it’s what the Church teaches as the previous information that’s been shared on this thread has demonstrated.

If you think the Church is contradicting herself just please say so. If not, please say that too. I won’t bother inquiring about that again if you’re still going to ignore the question I asked.

 

[otjm]

otjm;4973596:

You are rambling. As I’ve now pointed out to you repeatedly exactly what the norm is. Your contention that he gives on the tongue because it is the norm does not hold water. Read the Catholic papers and journals. Listen to Catholic radio. Listen to reports in the secular press. So you can make all the accusations you like but the facts are on my side…not yours.

God Bless,

Iowa MikeYou are obvously either ignorant of what “norm” means, or obtuse. In either event, further conversation seems problematic; you have not answered what I have asked - since the Pope has specifically said that Communion in the hand can be as reverent and since you have not answered directly but have implied that the Pope is a liar, I see nowhere we can go with this.

I read Catholic journals and papers, and I listen to Catholic Radio. I hahve also read what the Pope has had to say. The facts are most definitely not on your side.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ockam, I agree with you. But, what’s an NO parishioner to do? With no altar railing to kneel on, the (almost always shorter) priest or EMHC is reaching up to my tongue and that is kinda gross. I can’t kneel, because the Bishops have told us that we should bow deeply and then receive standing. And, I don’t want to call attention to myself and disrupt the line.

Practical advice. I need practical advice.

Practical advice–practice what the Church teaches. I don’t see what’s impractical about that?

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

I think reverently bowing before receiving the Eucharist is a good practice and it reminds us that we our receiving Our Lord. Whether we are receiving on the tongue or in the hands as long as we remain conscience of the fact that we are receiving Jesus it is ok. I receive on the tongue only because this is the way I was taught. We were taught that we were not allowed to handle the Host. My children were taught to receive on the hand and I don’t oppose this and each one of my children bow prior to receiving the Host. As this is a personal preference (tongue or hand) it depends on how we receive and if we are in a “state of grace”. I believe that is the most important thing when receiving the Host, are we worthy to receive him?

 

[Ockham]

The Church does not teach Communion in hand. It has acquiesced to the modernist threats. If you want to label this a contradiction then I suppose that is what it is. The real contradiction is allowing the body of Christ to be picked up by unconsecrated hands.

Communion in hand is a breech of Catholic dogma. The Church taught for over a thousand years the only way to receive the Lord was on the tongue while kneeling. Then along comes the Age of Aquarius Baby Boomers with their narcisstic drive, need for instant gratification and convenience, and everyone else has to conform. When these changes were introduced, they weren’t options. Receiving in hand while standing was dictated, the altars moved out, Mass in the venacular, etc, were not gradual and organic - they were sudden and unrelenting.

"1. In his last encyclical, the great Pope John Paul II gave the Church a strong warning which sounds like a real testament: “We must carefully avoid underestimating any dimension or requirement of the Holy Eucharist. We thus show our awareness of the greatness of this gift . . . there is no risk of exaggerating in respect for this Mystery.”

Awareness of the greatness of this mystery is shown in the way in which Christ’s Body is given and received. Being aware of the importance of the moment of Holy Communion, the Church in her bimillenary tradition has tried to find a ritual expression to testify to her faith, love and respect in the most perfect possible way. Thus, in the wake of an organic development, by at least as early as the 6th century, the Church began to give the Holy Eucharist directly into the mouth. This is testified in the biography of Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from 590 to 604, and by an indication of the Pope himself.

The Synod of Cordova, which took place in 839, condemned the sect of the so-called Casians for their refusal to receive Holy Communion directly into the mouth. After this the Synod of Rouen of 878 confirmed the current practice of placing the Body of Christ on the tongue, threatening priests with suspension from their office should they give the Eucharist to lay people by placing it in their hands.

In the West the custom of kneeling and prostrating oneself before receiving the Eucharist was established in monasteries as early as the 6th century (e.g., in the monasteries of St. Colombanus). Later, in the 10th and 11th centuries, this custom became even more widespread.

At the end of the patristic age, the practice of receiving Holy Communion directly into the mouth became so widespread as to be almost universal. This organic development can be traced back to the spirituality and Eucharistic devotion of the Fathers of the Church. As early as the first millennium, owing to the highly sacred nature of Eucharistic bread, the Western and Eastern Church in unison and almost instinctively realized the urgency of giving the Eucharist to lay people in their mouth."

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8059&CFID=726533&CFTOKEN=34385479

 

[Ockham]

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship​

Issued on May 29, 1969.
When the Church celebrates the memorial of the Lord it affirms by the very rite itself its faith in Christ and its adoration of him, Christ present in the sacrifice and given as food to those who share the eucharistic table.

For this reason it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man’s spiritual and psychological needs. Further, a change has taken place in the discipline governing the laity’s participation in the sacrament. Holy communion under two kinds, bread and wine has been reintroduced. It had once been common in the Latin Church too, but had subsequently been progressively abandoned. This state of affairs had become general by the time of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned and defended it by dogmatic teaching as being suited to the conditions of that time.[1]

These changes have made of the eucharistic banquet and the faithful fulfillment of Christ’s command a clearer and more vital symbol. At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”[5]

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

 

[Ockham]

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

1. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?

Yes: 751

No: 1,215

Invalid votes, 70

1. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?

Yes: 835

No: 1,185

Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

 

[Ockham]

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation,[12] accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.

Note: in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-547) the Instruction was accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand. The letter laid down the following regulations:

1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage…
2. The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully. In effect, since human attitudes are in question, it is linked with the sensibility of the person receiving communion. It should therefore be introduced gradually, beginning with better-educated and better-prepared groups. It is, above all, necessary that an adequate catechesis prepares the way so that the faithful will understand the significance of the action and will perform it with the respect due to the sacrament. The result of this catechesis should be to remove any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the eucharistic presence, and also to remove any danger or even suggestion of profanation.
3. The fact that the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread, or just any sacred object. Rather ought it to strengthen his sense of his dignity as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, of which baptism and the grace of the Eucharist make him a part. He will thus experience an increase of faith in the great reality of the Body and Blood of the Lord which he touches with his hands. His respectful attitude should be proportionate to what he is doing.
4. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant. One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium. In either case, the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place, and the minister’s role will be emphasized by his saying, “The Body of Christ,” to which the communicant responds, “Amen.”
5. No matter which method is adopted, one will be careful not to allow any fragment of the host to fall…
6. When the communion is distributed under both kinds, it is never permitted to place in the hands of the communicants hosts which have first been placed in the Blood of the Lord.
7. Bishops who have been permitted to introduce the new rite of communion are asked to send a report to the congregation, six months hence, on the outcome.

[Translated by Rev. Austin Flannery, O.P. from AAS 61 (1969), pp. 541-547.]

---

Endnotes

1. Cf. Council of Trent, session 21, The Doctrine of Communion under Both Kinds: Denz. 1726-1727.
2. St. Augustine, On the Psalms, 98, 9.
3. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis, V, 21.
4. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, n. 37.
5. Justin, Apologia, 1, 65.
6. See St. Augustine, On the Psalms 98, 9.
7. See Justin, Apologia 1 66.
8. Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium n. 3.
9. Ibid., n. 9.
10. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis V; 21.
11. See Acts 20:28.
12. See Vatican II Decree Christus Dominus, n. 38, par. 4.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm

 

[Ockham]

Do you get it digger?

Our Church is not in good shape. Our numbers are down, priests down, seminarians, down, belief in transubstantiation down, etc, etc. The "spirit of Vatican II’ has not produced good fruit. All these Protestant reforms have weakend our Church. I’m not sure what your attraction to Communion in hand is, perhaps you are an EMHC and don’t want to lose your prominence in your parish. Whatever the motivation, this practice has to stop.

 

[rookieonedge]

Here is a situation that happened to me at a NO Mass. It made me re-think my position about the standards for receiving Holy Communion.

I was with my mother who was in a wheelchair along the side and front of the church. A Eucharistic minister came to give the Body of Christ to all in this small section before going to the middle aisle. The Sacred Hosts were spread out on a somewhat flatter receptacle than a chalice. It had a stem which was held by the EM. To my absolute HORROR, she bent down to give my mother the Body of Christ, and the unthinkable happened. Several (maybe up to a dozen even) Sacred Hosts fell onto my mother’s lap and some even on the floor. The EM looked at me with shock not knowing what to do. I don’t know if I did the right thing, but as she just stood there waiting for me to do something (I decided God wanted me to make a move), I picked up all the hosts. Instead of putting them back in the plate, I thought it best to consume them myself because I didn’t know if they would just be disposed of. There were people around me watching, and I felt embarrassed, but I looked at this situation as a duty. If I was wrong, I’m certainly sorry. Maybe I should have just put the Sacred Hosts back in the plate-like container.

I thought what I did may be correct because one time my mother was too ill to receive the Sacred Host when I brought Jesus home in the little pic. The priest had told me to consume it, so I did.

The point of this story is to reveal that, although many parishes are trying harder to make changes closer to tradition (with the addition of some Latin songs and quietness during the recessional procession during Lent, etc. . .), there are still too many transgressions. Our parish priests should instruct their congregations concerning, not merely Mass etiquette, but true reverence for Our Lord.

 

[PJM]

=tr1strev;4937363]In my humble opinion it makes no difference whether communion is received by hand or traditionally. What matters is what is in your heart and mind as you approach to receive. If you reverently approach with full belief that you are receiving the body and blood of Christ then the manner of reception is immaterial.

Not so my friend, and the fact that you make this statement is the strongest possible evidence that it is NOT SO!

A question needs to be asked.

Is the Theology of receiving ones God in ones hand the same as receiving ones God on ones tongue?

Clearly it is not!

One who chooses (as it remains a vaild and licit option) to receice the VERY REAL Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself in there hands (usually unwashed before and after reception of Jesus) is assuming a worthiness to do so that is at best questionable. Can anyone outside of Orders, be “worthy?”

It is not my friends, a matter of being greater or lesser sinners. No it is rather, “what has God Himself” called one to do?!

The second issue, builds on the first. One who chooses to receive their God in their hands is in a very real sense “taking Jesus” rather than RECEIVING JESUS!

When one receives on ones tongue (one SHOULD… not must… SHOULD) do so only from a priest, bishop or deacon, have Jesus placed on ones tongue, which too has its own theology.

First, one does not presume “the right” / "the Worthiness " to receive Chrsit by onesself, which by itself is a GREATER SIGN of piety, and personal recogination of the God they are about to receive into their body. Actions, are well known for speaking LOUDER than do words!

Now one might well make the point that simply because one chooses to TAKE their God into their hands, by itself does not make it an impious act. Agreed! But what is the mind-set of most doing so?

The issue of "receiving Ones God, vrs. Taking One’s God" is highly signifiant of how we view God, and while Taking God into ones hands bodes well for a “signifying a greater personal relationship” with ones God, is it not, at least a bit presumtive?

Putting asside the obvious possible abuses of receiving in “ones hand”, there is no **“bad way” ** to receive Christ, Body, BUT their is a 'Good, Better and BEST WAY!

Good = in your hand, standing

Better = genuflecting B4 your God and receiving on your tongue

BEST = Kneeling (still a valid option) and receiving your GOD on your tongue.

I have left the issue of the Lords Sacred Blood to last.

It is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that this is a completely unnecessary sign and practice.

Catholic Catecheism: "1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites."

So we need ask ourselves why this practice, which by the way was VOTED DOWN at the Second Vatican Council! has been so agressively pursued.

The reason given is that “it is a fuller sharing” in Christ." BUT IS IT! See above:" Communion under bread ALONE makes it possible to receive the ALL (full) of the fruit of Eucharistic grace."

The reason has a GREAT deal more to do with the dumbing down of our faith, make us “more like our brethern Protestants,”… if they will not come to us, we’ll change and become like them!

The issue of receiving Eucharist under “both species” was also VOTED DOWN at the second vatican Council!

Yes “indults” were requested and relucently granted AFTER THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN FORCED PRACTICE!

So please dear friend, think about what you are doing, think about Who and What you are receiving, and do what you feel is best for you! And Most fitting for your God! There is no “bad” way, but their are are definitely “better ways”!

 

[Ockham]

If I was wrong, I’m certainly sorry. Maybe I should have just put the Sacred Hosts back in the plate-like container.

Rookie, it sounds like your heart was in the right place and you acted with pure intentions. Perhaps a priest or liturgical expert can advise the proper actions in the situation you described.

The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes like Communion in hand, EMHC, tabernacle to the side or in the back make me think of John 20: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, 'They have taken the Lord from the tomb and we don’t know where to find Him.”

We need to pray for our Church that she may rise from this period of darkness back to the rightful light in glory of our Lord. Our Lady asks us to pray the rosary daily and I offer my prayers in this intention.

 

[PaulinVA]

The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes like Communion in hand, EMHC, tabernacle to the side or in the back make me think of John 20: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, 'They have taken the Lord from the tomb and we don’t know where to find Him.”

We need to pray for our Church that she may rise from this period of darkness back to the rightful light in glory of our Lord. Our Lady asks us to pray the rosary daily and I offer my prayers in this intention.

Ockham, I think you are right, but the rhetoric is offputting.

Remember, you are trying to convince people, not bludgeon them.

 

[Ockham]

Good point. I tend to get too passionate about this subject. As a post-Vatican II Catholic, my discovery of the Church prior to the ‘reforms’ has been enlightening, rewarding, and antagonizing all at once. I feel as though so much of the beauty of the Church I love has been cloaked and hidden from me. Yesterday I attended my first high Mass. It was absolutely awe inspiring. I’ve never left a NO Mass feeling that way.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yesterday I attended my first high Mass. It was absolutely awe inspiring. I’ve never left a NO Mass feeling that way.

And I, after giving you guys a hard time all week, went to the worst NO I have ever been to; and I used to play guitar in the seventies at some real doozies.

My wife and I still have doubts about the validity of the Mass. At least one of our deacon candidates was there, so I know the pastor will be getting an earful.

 

[rookieonedge]

I remember attending some pre-Vatican II Masses before the Council and finding reverence sorely lacking due to the attitude of the celebrant. These were what was called “Low Masses.” Also, the servers (altar boys) were the only ones to make the responses. One positive thing about the Novus Ordo is that the congregation participates to a fuller extent. However, the traditional Mass had a certain mystery with its beautiful, mystical prayers, chant, polyphonic music and the devotion to the Eucharist. Only the consecrated fingers of the priest could touch the Body of Christ. I read earlier pages of excellent posts which shed light on the nature of the problem with Communion in the hand and other abuses. (One’s attention upon entering a Catholic Church should be immediately directed to the tabernacle. Yes, as was previously stated, too many churches still relegate the tabernacle to a side corner or a room so that the general assembly could just as well be in an auditorium).

Special thanks to Ockham for a consoling response to the debacle I experienced during the Mass. God bless all who have posted on this thread. It is particularly illuminating.

 

[Little_Dove]

James 3:5-8 The tongue…is a small member, yet it makes great pretensions. See how tiny the spark is that sets a huge forest ablaze! The tongue is such a flame. It exists among our members as a whole universe of malice. The tongue defiles the entire body. Its flames encircle our course from birth, and its fire is kindled by hell. Every form of life, four-footed or winged crawling or swimming can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind; the tongue no man can tame. It is a restless evil full of deadly poison.

What is the sin of sacrilege? To receive the Eucharist in mortal sin. For myself, my sins are not of murder, or stealing or beating, the sins that can readily be accomplished by the hands. But, what comes out of my mouth sometimes, can make me run very quickly to confession. Really, what is essential is the state of my soul when I receive Jesus, isn’t it? If I am in mortal sin, it doesn’t matter if I receive on my tongue or my hand, it is a Communion to the damnation of my soul, either way, unless I confess it.

We cannot agree as to the manner in which Our Lord should be received because the Church has not declared that one way is the only way. Until that happens, there will always be differing thoughts and it seems that that is the way it will remain for awhile.

I was taught as a child to receive communion on my tongue, I changed when communion on my hands were allowed and in the past two years have gone back to receiving on the tongue. I was also an EM for about 15 years, and have not served in that capacity for the past 2 years. However, when I used to receive on my hand, one of the Scriptural passages that always came to mind was the one by St. James about the tongue. I sin far more often by my tongue than by my hands. If my tongue hadn’t given offense to the Good Jesus, then I was pretty certain to be in a state of grace when I received Him.

I think the deep devotion to Our Lord in the Eucharist and the desire to see all honor and devotion and adoration be rendered Him in the Eucharist should be channeled into our Thanksgiving meditation and prayer to Him as prayers of reparation to His most Sacred Heart for all the blasphemies and sins of sacrilege that He receives in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Our love and devotion and ardent desire to see Him honored and adored in the Eucharist will perhaps repair in some way for the abuses He endures in this Sacrament.

God Bless!
To Jesus, Through Mary

 

[Auntie_M]

Thank you Little Dove

I have not read any other post that has said it any better than yours just did.

Thank you again.