Communion on hand

[AJV]

You won’t make it as a priest unless you can accept some fundamental tenants of Catholicism (and you’ll have no choice if someone in a country where the indult runs presents themselves to receive in the hand. The law of the Church permits them to do so and you will have to comply, unless you never offer the NO Mass). See above post regarding Trent. Reception in the hand is no less reverent than reception on the tongue.

He is, I think, considering the ICRSS so I don’t think that will ever present itself.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

He is, I think, considering the ICRSS so I don’t think that will ever present itself.

Good to know. Still doesn’t seem to have mastered the basic that the Church cannot propose to her people a discipline that would lead to impiety. As far as I know, that cuts across orders, societies, and rites.

 

[LilyM]

A few points to consider:

1. Instead of this “it is ok to receive on the hand” dialogue, ask yourself this: are we being as reverent as humanly possible while we receive the Eucharist? To me, to say “it is ok to receive on the hand” is COMPLETELY irreverent. Why NOT receive on the tongue should be the question.

Well that begs the question why kneel after the Consecration at all? Why not prostrate ourselves in the Presence? Surely that’s ‘maximum reverence’.

Why stand to approach the Communion rail in the first place? Why not crawl on our hands and knees?

In fact why dare to receive Communion at all more than once a year, as the Church commands, there’s absolutely no way any of us are ever truly worthy to receive at all, nor are we commanded or required to receive every week. That’d cut down on the potential for irreverence too.

You can see where I’m going with this. I’m all for reverence, but at the same time the very act of receiving Communion has inherently something very intimate and familiar - and dare I say just a little incompatible with absolute reverence - about it as well.

After all, among other things it’s an act of love between Christ and the members of his bride the church, mirrored in the marital act itself. A fact which can sometimes be lost in all the concern about kneeling v standing and tongue v hand etc etc.

 

[MusicMan]

I think that receiving on the tongue is just as irreverent as receiving in the hand. How often do we defile our tongues by the words that come out of our mouths?

 

[scylla]

The old Holy Father, who didn’t care for communion in the hand, admitted that there were people who received in the hand reverently. You are, again, painting with a broad brush and you’ve clearly stated that a discline permitted by the Church is evil. This is not Catholic.

I do admit that there are some who receive in the hand reverently.

I have not stated that the permission allowed is evil but the intent behind the people who promote it as a freedom is evil.
Please read my statement carefully as I am not stating the action is evil or the permission is evil.
Allowing it to happen as it was practiced and can be done is no problem as there is nothing evil in receiving in the hand.

What is evil is the intent on changing the focus from peoples will above obedience to God. That is the primary focus of much dissident behaviour.

Please read what I wrote carefully before just jumping with a reply. The intent is what is evil if it is intended to promote personal preference above reverence or obedience to God.

What is not Catholic is putting personal pleasure\preference above what should be done.

This is the same as, not genuflecting, this isn’t evil, but deliberately not doing it as a liberty is wrong.
There are many who are ignorant who don’t do it just like the many who receive in the hand which is allowed.
An old person who cannot genuflect does no wrong, the person who shows no respect when they know they should\could does wrong.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[scylla]

I think that receiving on the tongue is just as irreverent as receiving in the hand. How often do we defile our tongues by the words that come out of our mouths?

So it would be doubly irreverent to receive in the hand then put it in your mouth by that logic. Which would be even more disrespectful to our Lord.

I prefer to try and give the utmost respect at all times, except when not possible. This is why we don’t crawl around the Church on our hands and knees as that would be a mess.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Canderous]

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?

Thats what I wanted to know when I went to take by the mouth and the Eucharistic “minister” dropped the host becuase she put it on very tip of my lip instead of my tounge. I was so shocked that I don’t plan going back to a Roman Mass for a while (I’m byzantine)

 

[LilyM]

So it would be doubly irreverent to receive in the hand then put it in your mouth by that logic. Which would be even more disrespectful to our Lord.

I prefer to try and give the utmost respect at all times, except when not possible. This is why we don’t crawl around the Church on our hands and knees as that would be a mess.

In Christ
Scylla

A mess? It wouldn’t be any messier to crawl in an orderly fashion up the aisle for communion and back then it is to walk …

Just playing devil’s advocate there btw

 

[MrS]

You won’t make it as a priest unless you can accept some fundamental tenants of Catholicism (and you’ll have no choice if someone in a country where the indult runs presents themselves to receive in the hand. The law of the Church permits them to do so and you will have to comply, unless you never offer the NO Mass). See above post regarding Trent. Reception in the hand is no less reverent than reception on the tongue.

That would probably be true for about the 60%+ of Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence anyway.

Mother Theresa probably thought reception on the tongue was pretty fundamental… and she said she cried when she saw others receive in the hand.

Guess I agree with the OP and the saintly nun. Guess you don’t. So be it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please read what I wrote carefully before just jumping with a reply. The intent is what is evil if it is intended to promote personal preference above reverence or obedience to God.

What is not Catholic is putting personal pleasure\preference above what should be done.

I’m not leaping anywhere. Look at what you’ve written: “Should be done…” You’re essentially setting yourself above the Church which has granted a lliberty. It isn’t for YOU to say what “should be done,” it’s for the Church to say. Where she grants liberty, YOU would constrain the consciences of those who choose to exercise that liberty. More mini-popery.

If you don’t wish to receive in the hand, then don’t. You have that freedom, that liberty. If a priest demanded that you receive in the hand rather than on the tongue, I’d be the first to defend you against this encroachment on you liberty given you by the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That would probably be true for about the 60%+ of Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence anyway.

Mother Theresa probably thought reception on the tongue was pretty fundamental… and she said she cried when she saw others receive in the hand.

Guess I agree with the OP and the saintly nun. Guess you don’t. So be it.

Actually, there is no credible or objective proof that she actually said that. It’s been discussed in these forums, do a search. And even if she did, that’s a personal opinion, not a magisterial statement, which Blessed Teresa would herself readily, happily admit to. So don’t wrench your arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back as to how much you agree with this saintly nun, who’s loyalty to the church is unquestioned, who never entertained the notion of dissent (dissent on the right is essentially the same as dissent on the left, something “traditionalists” have difficulty remembering).

 

[MusicMan]

I am still more concerned about us defiling our tongues with what comes out of our mouths than with the erroneous assertation that lay people touching the blessed sacrament is sacrilege.

 

[scylla]

I’m not leaping anywhere. Look at what you’ve written: “Should be done…” You’re essentially setting yourself above the Church which has granted a lliberty. It isn’t for YOU to say what “should be done,” it’s for the Church to say. Where she grants liberty, YOU would constrain the consciences of those who choose to exercise that liberty. More mini-popery.

If you don’t wish to receive in the hand, then don’t. You have that freedom, that liberty. If a priest demanded that you receive in the hand rather than on the tongue, I’d be the first to defend you against this encroachment on you liberty given you by the Church.

Of course it should be done. Yes, should as the hands of a priest are consecrated for that specific purpose. In order to best express the belief in the dignity of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament we do this.
Our liberty to do less should always be avoided unless necessary, hence the name Extraordinary in EMHC’s. The Church is not teaching wrong and please don’t imply that I am saying so, I am saying the dissidents who promote this kind of thinking is wrong. I am free to not go to Mass during the week but I should go if I get the chance.

Now if I said the Church is wrong in allowing it then I would be setting my self up as Pope. Name calling is not necessary.
I would steer away from using that words like that as it is not appropriate for a Catholic forum.

We should properly form conciences as that is what keeps us from disrespecting God and each other. Do Catholics have the understanding that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament or is this belief something that is downplayed often these days.

Go visit the LA Religious Congress and check out what we have to deal with here in California and you will see that reverence is way off the radar.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[CatholicNick]

Can I just ask WHY people receive in the hand? And WHY they choose to do so over the tongue?

Just Curious.

 

[MrS]

Actually, there is no credible or objective proof that she actually said that. It’s been discussed in these forums, do a search. And even if she did, that’s a personal opinion, not a magisterial statement, which Blessed Teresa would herself readily, happily admit to. So don’t wrench your arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back as to how much you agree with this saintly nun, who’s loyalty to the church is unquestioned, who never entertained the notion of dissent (dissent on the right is essentially the same as dissent on the left, something “traditionalists” have difficulty remembering).

…don’t wrench your arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back as to how much you disagree with this saintly nun,

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Of course it should be done. Yes, should as the hands of a priest are consecrated for that specific purpose. In order to best express the belief in the dignity of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament we do this.
Our liberty to do less should always be avoided unless necessary, hence the name Extraordinary in EMHC’s. The Church is not teaching wrong and please don’t imply that I am saying so, I am saying the dissidents who promote this kind of thinking is wrong. I am free to not go to Mass during the week but I should go if I get the chance. **Let’s seperate issues shall we (your lumping EMHCs into the argument). There’s no SHOULD on this topic where the Church has allowed a liberty of conscience. Anything beyond that is an attempt to constrain another’s conscience where the Church has essentially said that it should NOT be constrained. **

Now if I said the Church is wrong in allowing it then I would be setting my self up as Pope. Name calling is not necessary.
I would steer away from using that words like that as it is not appropriate for a Catholic forum. I’m so glad that you’re not asserting that the Church is wrong (you seemed to be saying so in the earlier post, and thatt’s why I used the term mini-popery and will continue to use that handy term when people say that the Church is wrong). If I read you incorrectly, then I sincerely apologize.

We should properly form conciences as that is what keeps us from disrespecting God and each other. Do Catholics have the understanding that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament or is this belief something that is downplayed often these days. **At my parish, where you can receive either way, we are taught that Jesus is truly present. I’ve never been a member of a parish where that ISN’T taught. **

Go visit the LA Religious Congress and check out what we have to deal with here in California and you will see that reverence is way off the radar.

In Christ
Scylla

**I’ve seen pictures and heard tales (which I believe) from that conference. But that is not the norm anywhere that I’ve attended Mass (except one parish in Santa Cruz, California, where I was on vacation at the time). That’s important to keep in mind. The notorious exceptions, very often presented as “normative” on these forums, are NOT normative at all, but exceptions to the rule. I’m sorry your Cardinal Archbishop allows these things, but communion in the hand has nothing to do with that. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Can I just ask WHY people receive in the hand? And WHY they choose to do so over the tongue?

Just Curious.

I have GENUINELY tried, as a result of these forums, to receive Holy Communion in a recollected fashion on the tongue. For me, it is an exercise in utter self-consciousness; that is to say, when I receive this way, I’m only conscious of HOW I’m receiving, ie, “am I doing it right” and “I feel odd with my tongue sticking out and my eyes closed,” etc. When I receive in the hand, I’m just focused on WHO I’m receiving. I don’t universalize this by saying that everyone must feel and therefore do as I do, but I’m grateful for the choice.

I’ve never been thrilled with people putting their hands near my eyes or my mouth. Maybe it’s a dentist thing.

Thank you, incidentally, for asking.

 

[LilyM]

Can I just ask WHY people receive in the hand? And WHY they choose to do so over the tongue?

Just Curious.

Firstly because touch (of the hand specifically) is an incredibly important sense and an important way of communicating intimately with someone. Would you be nearly as close to your spouse, parents, friends, siblings or children if you never held their hand, stroked their hair or patted them on the head or the back?

Secondly because gifts are normally received in the hand - and with good reason! With receiving on the tongue the contact is immediate but also brief, like being given an unwrapped and already opened present. Receiving in the hand is like the excitement of getting to open the wrapping and the container and THEN savour the gift.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

…don’t wrench your arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back as to how much you disagree with this saintly nun,

Again, a big question as to whether or not she said it. And I’m NOT patting myself on the back. I was merely defending a liberty the Church permits. Who WAS patting themselves on the back (“I guess I agree with the saintly nun”)? Don’t trip over your tassles or your phylactery straps, either, a la “Lord, I thank you that I am not a sinner like this publican.”

 

[scylla]

**I’ve seen pictures and heard tales (which I believe) from that conference. But that is not the norm anywhere that I’ve attended Mass (except one parish in Santa Cruz, California, where I was on vacation at the time). That’s important to keep in mind. The notorious exceptions, very often presented as “normative” on these forums, are NOT normative at all, but exceptions to the rule. I’m sorry your Cardinal Archbishop allows these things, but communion in the hand has nothing to do with that. **

As this is the common practice in our parish and the Eucharist is downplayed at RCIA, as well as in religious education classes, this is pretty much the more common view you will see in my area.

Experience enough of this, talk to enough sisters without habits and dissidents teachings and you will see a common push for communion in the hand as the push for women priests.
-We are all priests and should all be on the altar.-

Spend some time in some of the “Catholic communities” and you will see a whole different understanding that what you are stating as the liberty of receiving in the hand.

If we don’t properly form conciences, then we concede them to the dissident theology which has no problem deforming conciences. If we don’t overly stress truth, lies will prevail.

This is how important it is as we have been way too lax on modernism and the Church has suffered because of it.

In Christ
Scylla