Communion on hand

[anonymoususer]

How is receiving communion on the hand NOT deliberate desecration of the Holy Eucharist? If you believe that the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, then you must believe that every crumb, visible or not, is the same, right? What is happening to those crumbs?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

First, what makes you think that people are not receiving any crumbs? Most modern hosts are manufactured in such a way as to virtually preclude the presence of crumbs (if you want crumbs, come to an Eastern Catholic liturgy where we use leavened bread!). The teaching of the Church is that if what is left is not properly bread then there is no presence of Christ. We in the Eastern Catholic Churches are very careful with trying to consume every crumb – but it it is not visible it is not bread and, therefore, Christ is not present in it!

Deacon Ed

 

[hilde_the_dog]

This is old hash. Please folks be civil and God Bless us

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

How is receiving communion on the hand NOT deliberate desecration of the Holy Eucharist? If you believe that the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, then you must believe that every crumb, visible or not, is the same, right? What is happening to those crumbs?

Anon,

The Church teaches (and has always taught) that only particles that are visible to the naked eye contain the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. So, as far as “invisible” crumbs falling to the ground, there is no worry about desecration.

However, visible crumbs falling to the ground is still a serious question. I suspect that, among other reasons, this may be why the Church forbade reception in the hand for centuries upon centuries. Communion in the hand began as an abuse around the 1960s, and was eventually given “indult” permission by Paul VI. I consider this very unfortunate. Not only is there the danger of desecration of the Sacred Species, but it makes the Eucharist seem more like common food, which, I believe, has served to weaken-- and nearly wipe out-- belief in the Real Presence among Catholics. What started as an “indult” has fast become the norm.

 

[Jared123]

Interesting topic. Are local associate pastor has instructed all people who receive on the hand to check for crumbs. However, very few people actually do this. I myself receive on the tongue most of the time, but have recieved on the hand and noticed crumbs (very small and only a few) sometimes. interesting how when I will go to daily mass 90% of the people receive on the tongue. When I go to a 5:30 saturday mass 95% will receive on the hand.

 

[gmarie21]

Just a side question…at the Last Supper, did the apostles receive the Eucharist in their hands or did Jesus place himself on their tounges? I usually receive on my tounge, but see no issue in others receiving the Eucharist in the palms of their hands properly (our pastor gave a homily on the proper reception both by mouth and hand).

 

[love4mary]

Here is an analogy given to me by my soon to be husband…“We do NOT tilt our heads back and have the Precious Blood ‘poured’ in our mouth”.

This is the argument he uses when trying to explain why he receives in the hand as opposed to the tongue, plus the old stand by,“The Apostols received in the hand from our Lord most likely”.

Its real easy for me,If my bishop says to receive on the tongue I will receive on the tongue, if he says the hands, then that is the way I will receive. Either way, I ALWAYS take extreme care and show the most reverance I can when receiving my Lord in Holy Communion.

 

[Jared123]

It is a choice left up to the person receiving Holy Communion, However I will state some reasons why I choose to receive on the tongue. #1 crumbs are not an issue. #2 It does seem to show more reverence to have a Priest (acting in Persona Christi) place the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ on my tongue without my touch. #3 Reverence…there is nothing more distrubing than watching a person holding a child in one hand, having anothing child tugging at their leg, and then when the are ready to receive Christ, they stick out their hand and pop the Eucharist in their mouth like it is tick tack.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Just a side question…at the Last Supper, did the apostles receive the Eucharist in their hands or did Jesus place himself on their tounges? I usually receive on my tounge, but see no issue in others receiving the Eucharist in the palms of their hands properly (our pastor gave a homily on the proper reception both by mouth and hand).

How the Apostles received the Eucharist at the first Mass is impossible to know, obviously, so I won’t hazard a guess. However, if they did receive in the hand, that would actually be fitting because they’re apostles. Priests and Bishops are allowed-- nay, priveledged-- to handle the Eucharist; lay persons aren’t. That’s the issue.

 

[LilyM]

It is a choice left up to the person receiving Holy Communion, However I will state some reasons why I choose to receive on the tongue. #1 crumbs are not an issue. #2 It does seem to show more reverence to have a Priest (acting in Persona Christi) place the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ on my tongue without my touch. #3 Reverence…there is nothing more distrubing than watching a person holding a child in one hand, having anothing child tugging at their leg, and then when the are ready to receive Christ, they stick out their hand and pop the Eucharist in their mouth like it is tick tack.

The thing with receiving in the hand is that when people are irreverent it is obvious and visible. Now plenty of people who receive on the tongue (or did back in pre-Vatican 2 days when it was the only way to receive) still do or would have done so in a state of mortal sin, for example. Or not believing in the Real Presence, or disbelieving some other required article of our faith. Which is equally troublesome if not more so.

You think Henry VIII, for example, would have failed to receive even when he was in an adulterous affair? Or contemplating heresy and/or schism? Or would have confessed every single time? Heck, he probably would never have been out of the confessional if that had been the case!

We just don’t KNOW that people didn’t profane the Eucharist in these ways just as often pre-1960s. I’m inclined to think they did, and that these things are more serious and much more common than the (usually unintentional and often not even negligent) falling of a few crumbs.

 

[MusicMan]

How the Apostles received the Eucharist at the first Mass is impossible to know, obviously, so I won’t hazard a guess. However, if they did receive in the hand, that would actually be fitting because they’re apostles. Priests and Bishops are allowed-- nay, priveledged-- to handle the Eucharist; lay persons aren’t. That’s the issue.

OK, so just when did they become Bishops? At Pentecost? At the Last Supper? Before or after Jesus consecrated the first Eucharist? If they weren’t yet ordained Bishops at the Last Supper, and they received on the hand, then they were lay people handling the Sacrament. And the first one at that.

When did Jesus make them Bishops? If the Church was born on Pentecost, doesn’t it stand to reason that they were ordained at Pentecost?

 

[palmas85]

Just a side question…at the Last Supper, did the apostles receive the Eucharist in their hands or did Jesus place himself on their tounges? I usually receive on my tounge, but see no issue in others receiving the Eucharist in the palms of their hands properly (our pastor gave a homily on the proper reception both by mouth and hand).

There are two schools of thought on this issue equally valid. One holds that all the diners would have been served from a communal plate, carried around by a server, who could have been Christ but more likely one of the women. The second is that Christ as the head of the group and hence the meal, would have said the prayers, made the blessings and placed a small morsel of each dish,( in this meal there are several traditional foods which are eaten in addition to bread and wine), in each of the diners mouths as a sign of both humility and respect. Both practices were common depending on the relationship of the parties involved. In the case of Jesus and the Apostles, given the close, loving, familial relationship they had, I believe He would have placed a small portion in each Apostles mouth.

As to those who will bring up that receiving in the hand was the practice in the early church, yes, it was, BUT and a big but it is, the Eucharist was not normally consumed at the Altar, but was instead taken home for consumption during the week. A small portion would be consumed at some churches, not at all of them by any means and the rest wrapped up and taken home. A white cloth was prescribed at most Churches for that function, along with specific instructions on how to wrap it so that mice would not eat it.

So receiving in the hand made perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Today, I have yet to hear a good reason for its’ return except that it makes Communion move along at a faster clip, and I truly don’t believe that to be a valid reason for the practice.

But that is just my opinion and nothing more.

 

[kleary]

How is receiving communion on the hand NOT deliberate desecration of the Holy Eucharist? If you believe that the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, then you must believe that every crumb, visible or not, is the same, right? What is happening to those crumbs?

Exactly- that is why I personally am so much against the communion in the hand indult.

Ken

 

[kleary]

OK, so just when did they become Bishops? At Pentecost? At the Last Supper? Before or after Jesus consecrated the first Eucharist? If they weren’t yet ordained Bishops at the Last Supper, and they received on the hand, then they were lay people handling the Sacrament. And the first one at that.

When did Jesus make them Bishops? If the Church was born on Pentecost, doesn’t it stand to reason that they were ordained at Pentecost?

Jesus made them Bishops and gave them His Authority when He called them. Give me a break. This is the weakest argument yet.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Just a side question…at the Last Supper, did the apostles receive the Eucharist in their hands or did Jesus place himself on their tounges? I usually receive on my tounge, but see no issue in others receiving the Eucharist in the palms of their hands properly (our pastor gave a homily on the proper reception both by mouth and hand).

I see a GRAVE issue with the whole “Communion in the hand” thing. If you look at how it happened you will understand why we have it as an indult today.

Communion in the hand was re-introduced again first by the Protestant Reformers in order to express two things-

1. There is no such thing as the Ministerial Priesthood.
2. The bread does not change into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ but is only a symbol- it is just bread.

It was a theological reason for them to re-institute the practice. They know the Church always taught “how we worship expresses what we believe”. Every action in liturgy expresses a belief. To get rid of the on the tongue meathod and go to the in the hand meathod hammered home their heretical doctrines.

In the Catholic Church it was re-introduced by disobedient clergy in Europe after Vatican II to ape the protestant practice. After Vatican II the liberals who felt that Vatican II did not go far enough decided to take it farther than the council fathers intended. That is how it came about. you can read it all in Archbishop Bugnini’s book “The reform of the Liturgy”. He goes into much detail on how the practice happened, illegally, illicitly, how Pope Paul VI and those in Rome tried so hard to stop it but to no avail.

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jesus made them Bishops and gave them His Authority when He called them. Give me a break. This is the weakest argument yet.

Ken

Then why did these Apostles allow communion in the hand in the early Church? Or why wasn’t it condemned? You’re argument of them being bishops and so allowed to receive in the hand is far weaker?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I see a GRAVE issue with the whole “Communion in the hand” thing. If you look at how it happened you will understand why we have it as an indult today.

Communion in the hand was re-introduced again first by the Protestant Reformers in order to express two things-

1. There is no such thing as the Ministerial Priesthood.
2. The bread does not change into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ but is only a symbol- it is just bread.

It was a theological reason for them to re-institute the practice. They know the Church always taught “how we worship expresses what we believe”. Every action in liturgy expresses a belief. To get rid of the on the tongue meathod and go to the in the hand meathod hammered home their heretical doctrines.

In the Catholic Church it was re-introduced by disobedient clergy in Europe after Vatican II to ape the protestant practice. After Vatican II the liberals who felt that Vatican II did not go far enough decided to take it farther than the council fathers intended. That is how it came about. you can read it all in Archbishop Bugnini’s book “The reform of the Liturgy”. He goes into much detail on how the practice happened, illegally, illicitly, how Pope Paul VI and those in Rome tried so hard to stop it but to no avail.

Ken

It was an ancient discipline that the Church disallowed and now allows. If you don’t want to receive that way, then don’t, simple as that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How the Apostles received the Eucharist at the first Mass is impossible to know, obviously, so I won’t hazard a guess. However, if they did receive in the hand, that would actually be fitting because they’re apostles. Priests and Bishops are allowed-- nay, priveledged-- to handle the Eucharist; lay persons aren’t. That’s the issue.

Actually, that’s incorrect. The Church allows for lay EMHCs to distribute Holy Communion and the Church allows the laity to receive in the hand (even at the Holy See, from the hand of the Supreme Pontiff himself), so it is misleading to say that it is not permitted.

 

[Jared123]

That is correct one can receive either on the hand or tongue.

 

[kleary]

It was an ancient discipline that the Church disallowed and now allows. If you don’t want to receive that way, then don’t, simple as that.

It makes no difference if those behind the re-institution are bent on false ecumenism, changing the Catholic doctrine on the priesthood and the Eucharist? The same with Altar girls? That those behind it are radical feminists and those who desire change in Catholic doctrine on the priesthood to allow for female priests?

Ken