Communion in the hand

[palmas85]

I’m sorry, Palmas, with respect, this goes no distance at all in
the argument for or opposed to Communion in the hand. The historical fact is that the Church had communion in the hand for centuries. The best argument for communion on the tongue is the development of Eucharistic devotion. No one can argue with that. By the same token, no one can argue that those who receive in the hand may well be receiving with the same reverence as those who receive on the tongue AND no one can argue that the Church hasn’t permitted it as a legitimate practice. So we should all stop browbeating each other about it (should, but probably won’t).

You are entirely correct Kirk, we should stop, But every time one of you guys drags up about it being the practice in the early Church I will continue to drag up why they did it and why they stopped. The Church stopped allowing the practice prior to the year 1000 primarily because of abuses and a growing loss of reverence. That is a historical fact Kirk…

I suppose that now in these times abuses cannot and will not occur. The faithful have now matured to the point where they fully understand what is going on and no one will be tempted to do anything the least bit sacriligeous or disrespectful.

The attempted sale of a consecrated Host on E-Bay a while back didn’t mean anything at all did it?. An aberration no doubt. Of course similar things happened all of the time in 800 and 900’s, not on E-Bay , but selling the Host as an amulet or good luck charm was a relatively common occurence. Don’t believe it? Check it out. And , no one sneaks a Host home and puts it on display on their altar these days, do they? I have seen posts on this forum from those who desperately wanted to do so. We know they didn’t, though don’t we? But it was another common practice in those early years. And of course no students sneak one of two out and conduct experiments to try to see if the Host reallyy was transformed and no one, absolutely no one would think of using the Host for any other purpose except immediate consumption, would they? Of course not.

Its great to know that human nature has evolved and changed so much and that now in the springtime we can all bask safely and securely in the light of mature knowledge and mature understanding of this great mystery:thumbsup:

.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Yea–but Msgr. Perl’s letter says what it says.

Ps. You must be so proud–another country that has to keep a sharp eye out --as to what happens to our Lord. Must make you all warm and fuzzy inside.

It doesn’t say what you lead people to believe.

I feel neither proud, nor warm and fuzzy. I receive on the tongue. I just don’t brow-beat people over an issue where the Church, in her legitimate authority, has granted them liberty. Funny, how “traditionalists” seem to be obsessed with the binding power given to Peter, but get in such a lather when his successor uses the power to loosen, equally Christ-given. I can see how you’d be bitter, esp. since things aren’t being done in PRECISELY the way you think that they should be.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are entirely correct Kirk, we should stop, But every time one of you guys drags up about it being the practice in the early Church I will continue to drag up why they did it and why they stopped. The Church stopped allowing the practice prior to the year 1000 primarily because of abuses and a growing loss of reverence. That is a historical fact Kirk… That’s why they stopped carrying the Eucharist HOME, not why they stopped receiving in the hand. With respect, can you provide a source that states that this is why communion in the hand was stopped (we stopped carrying the Sacred Species home with us)?

I suppose that now in these times abuses cannot and will not occur. The faithful have now matured to the point where they fully understand what is going on and no one will be tempted to do anything the least bit sacriligeous or disrespectful. Nothing that cannot be cured with good catechesis, at least toward those who have no truly evil intent. For those who do, they’re STILL going to secret the Host away for bad purposes, aren’t they? Haven’t they always?

The attempted sale of a consecrated Host on E-Bay a while back didn’t mean anything at all did it?. An aberration no doubt. Of course similar things happened all of the time in 800 and 900’s, not on E-Bay , but selling the Host as an amulet or good luck charm was a relatively common occurence. Don’t believe it? Check it out. And , no one sneaks a Host home and puts it on display on their altar these days, do they? I have seen posts on this forum from those who desperately wanted to do so. We know they didn’t, though don’t we? But it was another common practice in those early years. And of course no students sneak one of two out and conduct experiments to try to see if the Host reallyy was transformed and no one, absolutely no one would think of using the Host for any other purpose except immediate consumption, would they? Of course not.

Its great to know that human nature has evolved and changed so much and that now in the springtime we can all bask safely and securely in the light of mature knowledge and mature understanding of this great mystery:thumbsup:

.

See second paragraph. Those who want to sell the Host will STILL be able to pull it off.

 

[Walking_Home]

It doesn’t say what you lead people to believe.

I feel neither proud, nor warm and fuzzy. I receive on the tongue. I just don’t brow-beat people over an issue where the Church, in her legitimate authority, has granted them liberty. Funny, how “traditionalists” seem to be obsessed with the binding power given to Peter, but get in such a lather when his successor uses the power to loosen, equally Christ-given. I can see how you’d be bitter, esp. since things aren’t being done in PRECISELY the way you think that they should be.

---

You do receive on the tongue—that I must say—is a surprise.

No JKirkLVNV—I am not bitter. I am truely sad. I grieve deeply---- for as it happens here–where our Lord is found on the floor, etc.—now there is another country that has a greater opportunity to experience the same. So it is not about being bitter—for it wounds me to my soul—that our Lord will end up being stepped on , in the trash, etc.

 

[bear06]

I’m also a Communion on the tongue advocate. That said, I will tell you that it’s more than possible to receive on the tongue and still desecrate the Host by dropping it on the floor. This happened 3 times in my parish. My husband found a soggy Host in the vestibule. Not knowing what to do, he consumed it to discover that it was soggy. The pastor told us that it had happened 2 other times that month. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

 

[Karin]

I’m also a Communion on the tongue advocate. That said, I will tell you that it’s more than possible to receive on the tongue and still desecrate the Host by dropping it on the floor. This happened 3 times in my parish. My husband found a soggy Host in the vestibule. Not knowing what to do, he consumed it to discover that it was soggy. The pastor told us that it had happened 2 other times that month. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

I am sorry bear…did this occur after the folks recieved and went back to their seat…that they took the Host out of their mouth…or did it occur while in the process of recieving?

 

[bear06]

I am sorry bear…did this occur after the folks recieved and went back to their seat…that they took the Host out of their mouth…or did it occur while in the process of recieving?

It didn’t occur while they were receiving. The Host was in the vestibule. My poor husband was double mortified. If you ask me, the only way to at least hamper the desecration of the Host is to have some serious ushers standing guard. Luckily he went to the back to open the doors and pass out the bulletins or a whole bunch of people might have stepped on it too!

 

[Karin]

It didn’t occur while they were receiving.

ok

The Host was in the vestibule.

hmm looks like someone needs to relearn what the Eucharist is !

My poor husband was double mortified. If you ask me, the only way to at least hamper the desecration of the Host is to have some serious ushers standing guard.

Our Church has never had an issue with desecration…we all recieve on the tongue (well except for a handfull of folks) and only from the PRIEST…
Perhaps what is actually needed is proper Catechism!

 

[bear06]

ok

hmm looks like someone needs to relearn what the Eucharist is !

Our Church has never had an issue with desecration…we all recieve on the tongue (well except for a handfull of folks) and only from the PRIEST…
Perhaps what is actually needed is proper Catechism!

I seriously doubt it was anyone from our parish. I’m sure it was someone who was coming to desecrate the Host.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I’m also a Communion on the tongue advocate. That said, I will tell you that it’s more than possible to receive on the tongue and still desecrate the Host by dropping it on the floor. This happened 3 times in my parish. My husband found a soggy Host in the vestibule. Not knowing what to do, he consumed it to discover that it was soggy. The pastor told us that it had happened 2 other times that month. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

I, too, receive on the tongue – partly devotional, partly practical (see my previous post – I got tired of licking crumbs off my hand then having to deal with smeared lipstick on my palm).

At a funeral, from several rows back, I saw someone bite into the Host and a big piece dropped out of his mouth. It was right in front of the EM of the Cup, who did nothing. I was almost paralyzed with shock. As soon as I could manuever it, I rushed over – there He still was. Thank God, no one had stepped on Him, and I was able to consume Him.

I think receiving on the hand leaves things open for more accidents and ignorant actions to happen. But you’re right – if anyone has a nefarious intent, receiving on the tongue won’t prevent that.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

In my parish recieving on the tongue is almost always awkward, there is a bit of a fluster if you go to one of the many emhcs, they simply are confused by it. I find it more reverent to recieve on the hand in this case, as I can concentrate. Its hard to be reverent when this awkward confusion is going on.