Communion in the Hand?

[elts1956]

Yet Benedict gives only kneeling, on the tongue, at this Masses. If he thought it was equal to receiving in the hand, why not allow it at his Masses?

I don’t think Communion in the hand will be forbidden in the near future. Perhaps Benedict is showing “by example” what “may” be the preferred method. BUT even though Benedict gives communion on the tongue, we cannot read his mind and “infer” every member of the clergy is to distribute Communion on the tongue.

The argument of which is better, to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, or in the hand, goes in circles. We have the opportunity to receive the Host either way, so why argue about it???

 

[diggerdomer]

I

The argument of which is better, to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, or in the hand, goes in circles. We have the opportunity to receive the Host either way, so why argue about it???

Exactly my point.

THANK YOU!

There seem to be some here, though, who disagree that Catholics have the opportunity to do both, and despite repeated requests they have yet to share one item of current Church teaching that supports their bias.

Peace!

 

[Shin]

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

This one was definitely used out of context. I wouldn’t be surprised if the others are as well.

The context was quite clear from the extra paragraphs provided – in the context of the statement itself – they only provided more detail, not a difference. It is allowed only in times of persecution, or other extraordinary circumstances – i.e., the faithful are solitaries living in the desert and unable to receive Communion in another fashion, and so forth. It is clear because of the persecution the custom persisted for a time, established, but it was then cleared away with in times lacking persecution when it was not necessary because of the disadvantages of it already cited.

It is clear from observation as well as tradition that receiving on the tongue, all things being equal is a more reverent external action. Certainly people interiorly can be more or less reverent regardless of the external action. But the judgement of the Church, through tradition and in the words of the saints and Popes, is that Communion on the tongue is the more reverent external action, that has greater advantages towards respect towards the Host.

So people who wish to ignore all these Papal and saintly statements, and to state blindly as if this moment in time where all that existed and history did not – that these things are equal, not only do a disservice to the self evident differences in the external actions, but also the judgement of the Church. That is truly chasing after one’s own desires rather than forming ones preferences and conscience on the saints, which is the path to holiness.

 

[savienu]

BECAUSE it’s His Real Presence - and because it’s human nature (and rightfully so) to touch those you love, and because I love Him! John Paul II is known, when in Adoration, to actually go up and wrap his arms around the Tabernacle or Monstrance.

I’m morally certain that when Our Lady saw Our Lord for the first time after His resurrection, she embraced Him, His ‘noli me tangere’ to Mary Magdalene notwithstanding. What mother who loved her child wouldn’t? And what son who loved his mother would deny her?

And I’m sure Thomas wasn’t the only person out of the 500 witnesses to touch Him to prove to themselves that He was really risen.

For what it’s worth, I asked my mother why she decided to receive in the hand (since Post- VII it was presented as an option), and she said basically the same thing- that she thought it was neat to be touching God.

 

[Ockham]

How can we possibly take you seriously?

I keep providing an example of Church teaching by citing the GIRM. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse.

Do you agree, or not, that the GIRM is authentic Church teaching?

Please, for once, just answer a question that I sincerely ask. Please.

I can only assume by what you said that you consider the teachings of the Pope not be authentic Dogma. Is this correct? Pope Paul VI and every Pope since him has approved communion in the hand.

Again, please, just simply answer the question. For once.

Thank you.

1. Who’s ‘we’
2. Exactly. You keep beating your dead horse by citing the GIRM and nothing else.
3. CITH is tolerated, accepted maybe but the GIRM isn’t Church teaching, it is the guide line for saying Mass. The fact that it is changeable, contains many options, and subject to personal interpretations should tell you something about using it as your sole source. After the preamble, the GIRM states “Witness to unbreakable tradition”. Except of course for the 1500 year tradition of Communion on tongue I suppose.
4. How can you honestly tell me I’m not listening to the popes when I’ve listed several of their quotes against CITH. Did you read the quote from Paul VI?
5. Because the post V2 popes haven’t ruled against CITH does not imply their teaching nor approval. Why does Benedict XVI only distribute Communion to those kneeling and on their tongue? Huh? Why? Wouldn’t that be teaching? Leading by example.
6. I’ve answered your question several times yet you continue to pretend I’m not. Your debate tactics are dubious at best which is why I questioned your motivation.
7. I actually don’t take you seriously as I’ve yet to see an arugument beyond your incessant refrain of “It’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM!” Guess what, there’s a revision coming to the GIRM. GASP!

 

[baddog]

The context was quite clear from the extra paragraphs provided – in the context of the statement itself – they only provided more detail, not a difference. It is allowed only in times of persecution, or other extraordinary circumstances – i.e., the faithful are solitaries living in the desert and unable to receive Communion in another fashion, and so forth. It is clear because of the persecution the custom persisted for a time, established, but it was then cleared away with in times lacking persecution when it was not necessary because of the disadvantages of it already cited.

So people who wish to ignore all these Papal and saintly statements, and to state blindly as if this moment in time where all that existed and history did not – that these things are equal, not only do a disservice to the self evident differences in the external actions, but also the judgement of the Church. That is truly chasing after one’s own desires rather than forming ones preferences and conscience on the saints, which is the path to holiness.

Apparently you aren’t reading the passage carefully.

St. Basil the Great from around 378 AD:
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.* And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.*

I’ll repeat the statement again :
.* "And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.* "

 

[savienu]

Apparently you aren’t reading the passage carefully.

St. Basil the Great from around 378 AD:
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.* And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.*

I’ll repeat the statement again :
.* "And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.* "

Thank you for calling attention to that section. I couldn’t find what you were referring to either, that CITH was a common practice and not condemned by St. Basil. However, if you read the whole passage in context, he IS talking about those receiving during times of persecution, is he not?

 

[diggerdomer]

1. Who’s ‘we’
2. Exactly. You keep beating your dead horse by citing the GIRM and nothing else.
3. CITH is tolerated, accepted maybe but the GIRM isn’t Church teaching, it is the guide line for saying Mass. The fact that it is changeable, contains many options, and subject to personal interpretations should tell you something about using it as your sole source. After the preamble, the GIRM states “Witness to unbreakable tradition”. Except of course for the 1500 year tradition of Communion on tongue I suppose.
4. How can you honestly tell me I’m not listening to the popes when I’ve listed several of their quotes against CITH. Did you read the quote from Paul VI?
5. Because the post V2 popes haven’t ruled against CITH does not imply their teaching nor approval. Why does Benedict XVI only distribute Communion to those kneeling and on their tongue? Huh? Why? Wouldn’t that be teaching? Leading by example.
6. I’ve answered your question several times yet you continue to pretend I’m not. Your debate tactics are dubious at best which is why I questioned your motivation.
7. I actually don’t take you seriously as I’ve yet to see an arugument beyond your incessant refrain of “It’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM!” Guess what, there’s a revision coming to the GIRM. GASP!

Ok, I’ll stop beating the dead horse. I don’t think we’ll ever agree that the GIRM is authentic Church teaching (you never did answer that) and law and requires our obedience. While I claim it is I certainly would agree it can be changed. The Church has the authority to teach as She sees fit. I never said it couldn’t be changed. Just because it can be changed doesn’t mean it isn’t Church teaching or law and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be obeyed. I only keep citing it because to me it’s crystal clear what it says and means, and it’s the most immediately relevant reference imho (and it’s in every parish so anyone can easily refer to it and ask their priest, etc.).

Yes, you quote Popes, but selectively and out of context. Yes, Benedict prefers to give communion to people kneeling, but that’s not binding teaching (I have nothing against it, I’m just not reading into it more than what it is). It’s fine for anyone to be personally inspired by it. The teaching of the Church is that he could not refuse communion to someone if they chose to kneel or stand.

Re #7, the GIRM has already been revised. It’s the Missal itself that is still in the revision process.

Sorry to have annoyed you. Please accept my apologies. At least please take my apology seriously. Best wishes.

 

[savienu]

Ok, I’ll stop beating the dead horse. I don’t think we’ll ever agree that the GIRM is authentic Church teaching (you never did answer that) and law and requires our obedience. While I claim it is I certainly would agree it can be changed. The Church has the authority to teach as She sees fit. I never said it couldn’t be changed. Just because it can be changed doesn’t mean it isn’t Church teaching or law and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be obeyed. I only keep citing it because to me it’s crystal clear what it says and means, and it’s the most immediately relevant reference imho (and it’s in every parish so anyone can easily refer to it and ask their priest, etc.).

Yes, you quote Popes, but selectively and out of context. Yes, Benedict prefers to give communion to people kneeling, but that’s not binding teaching (I have nothing against it, I’m just not reading into it more than what it is). It’s fine for anyone to be personally inspired by it. The teaching of the Church is that he could not refuse communion to someone if they chose to kneel or stand.

Re #7, the GIRM has already been revised. It’s the Missal itself that is still in the revision process.

Sorry to have annoyed you. Please accept my apologies. At least please take my apology seriously. Best wishes.

While I agree with you that the GIRM in the United States allows for the reception of communion in the hand (whether I agree or not is not the issue), the Pope is not in America, and, being the Pope, I’m fairly certain he CAN deny to distribute communion in the hand. In fact, didn’t someone say earlier in the thread that he DID deny communion in the hand to someone, and waited for her to receive on the tongue?

 

[baddog]

Thank you for calling attention to that section. I couldn’t find what you were referring to either, that CITH was a common practice and not condemned by St. Basil. However, if you read the whole passage in context, he IS talking about those receiving during times of persecution, is he not?

St. Basil the Great from around 378 AD:
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.* And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.*

Yes, he is. However, the point he is making is for those who do not have a priest available it is permissible to take the Host in one’s hand. Why? because even in the Church the recipient takes the host from the priest and lifts it with his own hand to his lips.

 

[Layman]

Why, when one can humble oneself by receiving communion, kneeling, on the tongue, would anyone persist in taking it standing, in the hand?

 

[jpy15026]

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion-image.htm

 

[savienu]

St. Basil the Great from around 378 AD:
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.* And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.*

Yes, he is. However, the point he is making is for those who do not have a priest available it is permissible to take the Host in one’s hand. Why? because even in the Church the recipient takes the host from the priest and lifts it with his own hand to his lips.

Oh…yes, I see now what he is saying. Thank you for clarifying that.

edit: Because I just thought of this- IF it was common practice for the recipient to receive in the hand anyway, why does he have to clarify for those to whom he is writing?

 

[Bif]

I haven’t read the entire thread so I apologize if a similar situation has already been addressed.

I grew up receiving Communion in the hand but have been receiving it in the mouth the last few months after reading up on some of the reasons to do so. Yesterday at Mass the priest missed my mouth (I remember feeling his hand on the left corner of my mouth) and the Host landed on my right sleeve. Thank God it didn’t hit the floor! I just remember being horrified, as was the priest, who picked it up and made sure it made it on my tongue… I distinctly got the impression that this priest is not a fan of distributing Communion on the tongue, possibly for this reason.

As I returned to my seat, I was very apologetic and embarrassed. I wondered if I hadn’t opened my mouth wide enough?

Even though this is the first time this has happened to me (and hopefully the last), I’m now somewhat afraid to keep receiving Communion on the tongue, as nothing like this happened all the years I received it in the hands.

Any advice/thoughts are very much appreciated.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

 

[baddog]

Oh…yes, I see now what he is saying. Thank you for clarifying that.

edit: Because I just thought of this- IF it was common practice for the recipient to receive in the hand anyway, why does he have to clarify for those to whom he is writing?

The main issue he is addressing is if no priest is present then one can receive the Host from one’s own hand because in the Church, with a priest present, the Host is placed in the recipients hand anyway.

 

[baddog]

Why, when one can humble oneself by receiving communion, kneeling, on the tongue, would anyone persist in taking it standing, in the hand?

Humility is a condition of the heart, not the position of the knee.

 

[baddog]

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion-image.htm

Read some of this. Wasn’t impressed. My thought was if the Holy Spirit removed CITH because of abuses, couldn’t he not restore it once again if such abuses were addressed?
And if the practice of CITH is intrinsically evil, why was it allowed in the first place?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Humility is a condition of the heart, not the position of the knee.

I best express humility by kneeling, but you are correct.

 

[DavidPalm]

Yesterday at Mass the priest missed my mouth (I remember feeling his hand on the left corner of my mouth) and the Host landed on my right sleeve. Thank God it didn’t hit the floor! I just remember being horrified, as was the priest, who picked it up and made sure it made it on my tongue… I distinctly got the impression that this priest is not a fan of distributing Communion on the tongue, possibly for this reason. . . . Any advice/thoughts are very much appreciated.

This isn’t really your fault. The priest is supposed to have a paten to avoid such things. See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=201500

 

[missal]

I haven’t read the entire thread so I apologize if a similar situation has already been addressed.

I grew up receiving Communion in the hand but have been receiving it in the mouth the last few months after reading up on some of the reasons to do so. Yesterday at Mass the priest missed my mouth (I remember feeling his hand on the left corner of my mouth) and the Host landed on my right sleeve. Thank God it didn’t hit the floor! I just remember being horrified, as was the priest, who picked it up and made sure it made it on my tongue… I distinctly got the impression that this priest is not a fan of distributing Communion on the tongue, possibly for this reason.

As I returned to my seat, I was very apologetic and embarrassed. I wondered if I hadn’t opened my mouth wide enough?

Even though this is the first time this has happened to me (and hopefully the last), I’m now somewhat afraid to keep receiving Communion on the tongue, as nothing like this happened all the years I received it in the hands.

Any advice/thoughts are very much appreciated.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

Hi,
I too prefer receiving communion on the tongue. Recently at a local Monastery, the priest was giving communion to the nuns and so a female EM was giving out communion to the rest of the parish. She missed my mouth and dropped the host onto the floor…She just stared in shock.…I did not (at that time) know the rules…I came from kneelers and priests giving communion.
.Being in shock myself, I shot out my hand to the floor. This was Jesus on the floor, I wasn’t going to let him stay there. So, I picked Jesus up and placed him into my mouth. I figured, if it was dirty, I didn’t care…IT WAS JESUS. I told Him I loved him, I told Him I was sorry this happened. I was and am even more convinced that this belongs to priests only to give out communion. I don’t care that this was an accident, I will continue to receive on the tongue whenever and wherever I can. That’s my belief.
I later did some research to find out exactly what I should have done if this occurs again. Seems the priest is supposed to pick it up. But he wasn’t there at the time.
This may read as insensitive…believe me at the time it was not.
View attachment 5470