Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windmill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Windmill

Guest
Mother Theresa was asked, “What have you seen that makes you the saddest?” This saintly nun had seen the horrors of starvation, child abandonment, and poverty, yet she responded, “What makes me the saddest is when I see Catholics receiving Communion in the hand.”

Just because something is “legal” doesn’t mean it is good. In fact, when it comes to altar girls, communion in the hand, both species at Communion, and many other things, they arose out of a spirit of disobedience and, despite constant disapproval from the hierarchy, they were, reluctantly, “allowed” to prevent a rupture in the Church. Such “rewarding of disobedience” is a concern for many.
 
Windmill said:
Mother Theresa was asked, “What have you seen that makes you the saddest?” This saintly nun had seen the horrors of starvation, child abandonment, and poverty, yet she responded, “What makes me the saddest is when I see Catholics receiving Communion in the hand.”

.
Click to expand...
So we should recieve directly in the mouth?
 
it is the norm, as far as church law goes. receiving in the hand is allowed only via an indult from the norm. even then, one whould understand the history behind this law. it came very reluctantly. while it’s “legal”, is it good?

mr theresa didn’t think so. but hey, who was she?
 
*correction, one should understand the hostory behind how this “allowance” came to be. just because it was “allowed” doesn’t mean it was done-so joyfully.
 
Windmill said:
HISTORY. not hostory
Click to expand...
Its ok I was trying to type with a kicking baby in my arms .:o
So because it was accepted reluctantly then we should feel the same way? I am so :confused: I am trying to be obedient here but it is all so confusing at times. Is it true we are not supposed to hold hands during the Our Father? Sorry for going off topic but I just bearly heard alot of these things.
 
receiving in the hand is not being disobedient, but I’m sure those in rome wouldn’t shed a tear if everyone decided tomorrow to stop doing it. they gave into pressure to allow a practice that they didn’t want going on. by virtue of their “allowing” it, it is legal and, therefore, not an act of disobedience.

but, again, just because you CAN, does it mean you SHOULD?

as far as holding hands at the our father, no we shouldn’t be doing it, just like we shouldn’t be responding to the priest’s “The Lord be with you” by saying “And also with you” with OUR hands outstretched. It’s a priestly gesture, and even deacons aren’t supposed to do it unless they are forced to preside over a communion service.

I stray.

my point is this. we must keep from going off into the two extremes of hyperlegalism or hyperlaxity. hyperlegalism says “communion in the hand is just as bad as using blueberry muffins for hosts (yes, it’s been attempted before).” such a rigid view cannot distinguish between invalid and discouraged. hyperlaxity throws all caution to the wind and says, “it doesn’t matter, as long as it makes you feel close to god.”
 
Windmill said:
Mother Theresa was asked, “What have you seen that makes you the saddest?” This saintly nun had seen the horrors of starvation, child abandonment, and poverty, yet she responded, “What makes me the saddest is when I see Catholics receiving Communion in the hand.”

Just because something is “legal” doesn’t mean it is good. In fact, when it comes to altar girls, communion in the hand, both species at Communion, and many other things, they arose out of a spirit of disobedience and, despite constant disapproval from the hierarchy, they were, reluctantly, “allowed” to prevent a rupture in the Church. Such “rewarding of disobedience” is a concern for many.
Click to expand...
I LOVE Mother Teresa.

However, I do have a special love for receiving in the hand. As a matter of fact, I believe that receiving in the hand may just pre-date reception on the tongue.

It will take me a while folks, but I can find the documentation. It says something along the lines of “you shall make a throne of your right hand, resting in your left…”

I also do not have any problem whatsoever receiving on the tongue–there are times that I do.

But again the ORIGINAL PREMISE OF THIS QUESTION was motivation.

Does anyone mind talking about their motivation. Please dig deeper than what we already know of Jesus, that He is God’s Son, the King of Kings (I mean this sincerely, please do not read flippancy).
 
Windmill said:
Just because something is “legal” doesn’t mean it is good. In fact, when it comes to altar girls, communion in the hand, both species at Communion, and many other things, they arose out of a spirit of disobedience and, despite constant disapproval from the hierarchy, they were, reluctantly, “allowed” to prevent a rupture in the Church. Such “rewarding of disobedience” is a concern for many.
Click to expand...
And another take on your post might run: “And who are these weak, wet rag, yellow Bishops who would allow anyone to tell them what is right. After all, they are the successors to the Apostles, what they bind below is bound above, what they loose below is loosed above. The gates of Hell will not prevail against them… etc. etc.”

I don’t buy this paragraph of your above at all, with all due respect to you.
 
maurin,

i understand your skepticism. my intent is not to cast aspersions on the american bishops. i believe we should pray for our current pastors. however, to ignore the history of how things came to be allowed by these indults (“exceptions to the rule”) is to fall into a legalism that says, “it’s allowed, therefore it must be good.”

the indeffectability of the church lies in what it proscribes (teaches as doctrine), not in what it allows to quell rebellion. IOW, the church does not “teach” or “promulgate” communion in the hand. it allows it. and while it is not inherently evil, communion in the hand and altar girls are compromises that the hierarchy reluctantly made to avoid people falling away from pratice due to hurt feelings.

if anything, i would say WE are the reason for a lot of the problems in the church. we oftentimes put pressure on priests and bishops, and they are humans who have their limits. imagine what would happen in the average parish if priests actually followed the pope’s encyclical, “redemptionis sacramentum”, and stopped doing extraordinary ministers of holy communion on a habitual (weekly) basis. the laity would revolt. many don’t even know that the pope has issued such a document saying this becuase the hierarchy are afraid of the implications. many in the hierarchy are concerned about what to do since the pope revoked the indult for american parishes to allow EMHCs to purify vessels. why else wouldn’t we have already seen these changes take effect? why delay? the answer is obvious. it’s US.

i think we can agree that it is good to learn from the past so that we do not repeat the same things.
 
maurin said:
However, I do have a special love for receiving in the hand. As a matter of fact, I believe that receiving in the hand may just pre-date reception on the tongue.

It will take me a while folks, but I can find the documentation. It says something along the lines of “you shall make a throne of your right hand, resting in your left…”
Click to expand...
Palmas85 will hopefully come in with the documentation on WHY there were directions for receiving in the hand. There were also directions for keeping the Body of Christ fresh and free from mice. The Body of Christ was actually taken home and meant for the whole week. That has really nothing to do with the hosts of today.

And we are not in the ancient church. We have almost 2000 years since the ancient church with tons of tradition since then.

I personally do not receive in the hand. When I go to a parish that does, I will do it for Unity, but my daughter (9) will not. God Love her!
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
Palmas85 will hopefully come in with the documentation on WHY there were directions for receiving in the hand. There were also directions for keeping the Body of Christ fresh and free from mice. The Body of Christ was actually taken home and meant for the whole week. That has really nothing to do with the hosts of today.

And we are not in the ancient church. We have almost 2000 years since the ancient church with tons of tradition since then.

I personally do not receive in the hand. When I go to a parish that does, I will do it for Unity, but my daughter (9) will not. God Love her!
Click to expand...
Reception in the hand, though, continued for long after the practise of reserving at home was stopped. The Catechical instructions of Cyril (or pseudo-Cyril) do not address it in the light of taking it home. Though in Rome, at least, women had to cover their hands with the white cloth for sundry reasons including those that I am too prudish to write about.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
I personally do not receive in the hand. When I go to a parish that does, I will do it for Unity, but my daughter (9) will not. God Love her!
Click to expand...
Our kids must think the same way:) and the more I watch my eldest son…I think I will follow suit and only (no matter what the norm in the Parish is) recieve on the TOngue! I do not mind sticking out in this instance any more!
 
Windmill said:
>>> the indeffectability of the church lies in what it proscribes (teaches as doctrine), not in what it allows to quell rebellion. IOW, the church does not “teach” or “promulgate” communion in the hand. it allows it. and while it is not inherently evil, communion in the hand and altar girls are compromises that the hierarchy reluctantly made to avoid people falling away from pratice due to hurt feelings.

Can you supply a source? The logic for this seems to be the Church bends to avoid hurt feelings. If that were true, then we would have women priests, contraception, and a host of other issues that fall into this category of “hurting feelings.” Have you read the GIRM with respect to permissions?
  1. In this manner the Church, while remaining faithful to her office as teacher of truth safeguarding “things old,” that is, the deposit of tradition, fulfills at the same time another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth “things new.”
In the same vein, consider commenting on the “allowance for hurt feelings” in permitting the TLM to be celebrated as an indult. As I mentioned in my previous post, wisdom’s children have a habit of substantiating their choice when the rubric suits their personal logic.
imagine what would happen in the average parish if priests actually followed the pope’s encyclical, “redemptionis sacramentum”, and stopped doing extraordinary ministers of holy communion on a habitual (weekly) basis. the laity would revolt.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The Bishops are encourging reception of communion under both species, thereby requiring the use of EMHC’s. I highly doubt the laity would revolt.
Click to expand...
 
thechrismyster said:
you revel in the fact your daughter has a smug disdain for something that it perfectly licit?

i wouldn’t be so OK with that attitude. but to each their own.
Click to expand...
Disdain??
They find it more revernet to recieve only on the tongue…what is your issue with that?
I too only recieve on the tongue…and my kids do to…my eldest started out recieveing in the hand until he truly realized what he was holding and felt that his hands where not worthy to touch the Host…so he only recieves on the tongue out of reverence!
 
Karin said:
Disdain??
They find it more revernet to recieve only on the tongue…what is your issue with that?
I too only recieve on the tongue…and my kids do to…my eldest started out recieveing in the hand until he truly realized what he was holding and felt that his hands where not worthy to touch the Host…so he only recieves on the tongue out of reverence!
Click to expand...
Bishops, Cardinals and Popes have all supported receiving in the hand. millions of Catholic receive in the hand every day.

why would my 9 year old be better than that? is she enlightened as to the purity of her own Eucharistic worthiness in ways i don’t understand? if it’s not a problem for the Church to receive in the hand, and is a problem for my 9 year old… then i need to shape the thinking of my child, not the Church. Not that the action of receiving on the tounge is bad, but to intentionally shun one for the other shows bad Catholic formation.

such a blatant attitude is a symptom of a larger character flaw in the child.
 
Karin said:
This may be it…
MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion****Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM
Click to expand...
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:
Code: 
              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.**
What are they really trying to say here??*
 
thechrismyster said:
you revel in the fact your daughter has a smug disdain for something that it perfectly licit?

i wouldn’t be so OK with that attitude. but to each their own.
Click to expand...
At our parish we receive kneeling and on the tongue by intinction.

Where in the world are you getting smug distain?
When I asked her why she received that way, she said, “It’s Jesus. My hands may be dirty.”

While perfectly licit, I have not taught her about church rules. Neither has her Catechism class. When it is age appropriate, we will do this.

Until then, she is allowed to receive on the tongue, so what is the problem with it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top