Communion on hand

[JKirkLVNV]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/13/13_1_217.gif

Certainly (and not unexpected).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So if we receive in the hand, it’s more about US? As I said, I find myself less SELF-conscious when receiving in the hand, less focused on SELF and more on CHRIST. The act of receiving on the tongue is, FOR ME, an act of complete self-consciousness. I’ve tried it time and time again, with the same result.

I’m with you here, and I was raised in pre-Vatican II.

Receiving on the tongue always seemed unnatural for me. So it was a conscious effort for me.

Jim

 

[AJV]

.

Go back and read my post, I was answering the question on why “I” receive in the hand.

Sorry that my reasons offend you.

Jim

JimR-OCDS,
You are entitled to your own reasons for receiving in a way that the Church allows, and I don’t have anything against that although personally I prefer recpetion on the tongue.

What I was objecting to was the terms you used to describe the normative method of reception. A simple “I feel it is not hygenic” is, IMHO, better that saying “filthy practise” which should, again IMHO, never be used in relation to it, and I felt that “stick out your tongue and suck on this” was a disrespectful way of referring to a reverant (not implying that CITH isn’t) practise of the Church, that could have entirely been ommitted. I’m not saying you meant it and I regret if this sounds a bit pompous, but that is the impression I got from the post.

 

[palmas85]

I would turn the question around and ask “why do you care how I receive?”

The Church, at least in the U.S., says that it is optional to us which way to receive. That is all the answer that is really needed. Unless you can show me someone who is conciously exercising whichever option they choose because they think it is less reverent, it is up to the individual.

We often hear the charge here about people making the liturgy into their “own private property”, and that charge is made by many of the same people who are here saying we should only receive on the tongue. I would counter that by denigrating reception in the hand when the Church says it is our option that you are in fact making this your “own private property.”

I don’t say that to be nasty, but to point out that as long as we receive reverently, which way calls us individually more to God is really nobody else’s business, and certainly should not be subjecting anyone to anyone else’s judgment about their devotion or piety. I do both on various occasions, and have heard good arguments for and against both, and have no problem with either as long as they are done reverently.

Peace,

I don’t particularly care how or even if you receive to be honest with you. I never questioned the validity of receiving in the hand. I never said it was less reverent. I merely asked why you preferred it. Most people have a reason they prefer one or the other.

Why are you so confrontational? Why get upset so easy?

I just asked a question thats all. You got really really upset.

I repeat dude, chill out.

 

[palmas85]

How about those who receive on the tongue? When they’re chewing the Eucharist, and a crumb gets stuck in their teeth that they don’t know about and they brush and/or floss their teeth, how is that any different than your concern with receiving on the hand? Again, I receive on the tongue but do not believe that one who receive properly in the handis desrespectful. I remember for all the years I received in the hand I was extremely concerned about receiving properly and having my hands placed correctly. I know I’m not the only (former) hand receiver who has made sure of receiving correctly.

You chew the Eucharist? We were taught not to do that, just let it dissolve. It only takes a couple of seconds.

 

[palmas85]

“Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

We take, we eat.

And we are greatful.

Peace all.

That statement while true and a good quotation, does not answer the question. It seems as though you are avoiding answering it. Why? It is a simple question. No tricks, guaranteed. I just like to know why people feel so strongly about the issue. Thats all.

 

[AJV]

You chew the Eucharist? We were taught not to do that, just let it dissolve. It only takes a couple of seconds.

That was a pious practise, no? I can’t see anything wrong (not that you said it was) with chewing, especially since the argument we use against Protestants is that in S.John 6, the word used was trogos. And in the light of what someone posted yesterday (or was it day before), where thicker hosts are used, that might be a problem.

 

[palmas85]

That was a pious practise, no? I can’t see anything wrong (not that you said it was) with chewing, especially since the argument we use against Protestants is that in S.John 6, the word used was trogos. And in the light of what someone posted yesterday (or was it day before), where thicker hosts are used, that might be a problem.

I believe it was more than anything else. It also kind of forced you to think about it because you would feel it in your mouth as it dissolved.

Not really I don’t think, as long as they use only the materials permitted. Wheat and water dissolves pretty quickly despite the thickness. When you start drifting off into other confections like corn tortillas or onion bagels or raisin bread then you start to encounter problems.

 

[ncjohn]

Why are you so confrontational? Why get upset so easy?

I just asked a question thats all. You got really really upset.

I wasn’t upset or confrontational. I was simply responding to the constant context that this is put in: the “why do you prefer to not do it the “right” way” question. The “…that I have yet to hear a good answer for…” statement is a clear call for people to have to justify doing something for which no justification is needed.

As I said, I don’t care one way or another as I receive in both ways at different times. I do object however to the position taken by many calling themselves “traditionalists” that the “old way” is the “best” or only way to do things. These are purely subjective choices on which the Church has given us options, and I have a problem with with hearing that one of my brothers or sisters is less reverent based on which option they choose, whether it be this, which language they prefer, what kind of music they prefer, or any of the other myriad subjective choices people are put down for here.

One really has to wonder how much attention is being paid to the mass given how much detail some here seem to have about what everyone else is doing at any given moment. I find that very sad.

 

[LilyM]

I believe it was more than anything else. It also kind of forced you to think about it because you would feel it in your mouth as it dissolved.

Not really I don’t think, as long as they use only the materials permitted. Wheat and water dissolves pretty quickly despite the thickness. When you start drifting off into other confections like corn tortillas or onion bagels or raisin bread then you start to encounter problems.

Something as simple as using wholewheat flour (which is perfectly licit) instead of white can have the same super-chewy effect - one has, after all, to have one’s mouth sufficiently clear to respond to the final prayer and dismissal, no?

 

[palmas85]

I wasn’t upset or confrontational. I was simply responding to the constant context that this is put in: the “why do you prefer to not do it the “right” way” question. The “…that I have yet to hear a good answer for…” statement is a clear call for people to have to justify doing something for which no justification is needed.

As I said, I don’t care one way or another as I receive in both ways at different times. I do object however to the position taken by many calling themselves “traditionalists” that the “old way” is the “best” or only way to do things. These are purely subjective choices on which the Church has given us options, and I have a problem with with hearing that one of my brothers or sisters is less reverent based on which option they choose, whether it be this, which language they prefer, what kind of music they prefer, or any of the other **myriad subjective choices **people are put down for here.

One really has to wonder how much attention is being paid to the mass given how much detail some here seem to have about what everyone else is doing at any given moment. I find that very sad.

I get it. The myriad of choices. Choose what you like, discard the rest let everybody do his own thing and don’t judge anything or anybody. All very 60ish.

Like Chuck Berry said in his great, well not so great song , My Ding a Ling circa 1971

Freedom baby, live the way you wanna live. Nobodys gonna knock it.

Kind of explains a lot. Thanks for the reassurance that the cafeteria mentality is still alive and well. I never would have guessed. Silly me.

Oh by the way the post wasn’t directed at you. It was directed to someone who was very confrontational in his posts. I didn’t read the header and assumed he was responding. Apologies.

 

[tassitus]

Something as simple as using wholewheat flour (which is perfectly licit) instead of white can have the same super-chewy effect - one has, after all, to have one’s mouth sufficiently clear to respond to the final prayer and dismissal, no?

That is, of course, unless you are one of those who consider it acceptable to walk from the host and chalice directly out the door of the church and to your car…

But that is another thread, isn’t it?

Jesus told his Apostles, “take and eat” not “stick out your tongue and suck on this.”

And just for the record, even with my slight preference for communion by hand, I too find this language borders on being offensive. I am not sure it was supposed to be, but come on, now…

Peace all.

 

[ncjohn]

I get it.

…

Kind of explains a lot. Thanks for the reassurance that the cafeteria mentality is still alive and well. I never would have guessed. Silly me.

Yes, I get it too.

Anybody who doesn’t agree with you and wants to use some other option which the Church says is perfectly ok has a “cafeteria mentality”. Yup, receiving on the hand or prefering the N.O. is right up there with supporting abortion or wanting women priests.

Got it! Thanks for the confirmation.

“Sarcastic but fair…”
Well, half is better than none I guess.

 

[palmas85]

Something as simple as using wholewheat flour (which is perfectly licit) instead of white can have the same super-chewy effect - one has, after all, to have one’s mouth sufficiently clear to respond to the final prayer and dismissal, no?

I’ve never had that problem. The Eucharist is usually ingested by the time I return to my seat and if not within a very short time afterwards. What size hosts are you guys using down there anyway? I

I was also under the perhaps mistaken impression that the flour used HAD to be wheat. Is that not the case any longer?

 

[palmas85]

Yes, I get it too.

Anybody who doesn’t agree with you and wants to use some other option which the Church says is perfectly ok has a “cafeteria mentality”. Yup, receiving on the hand or prefering the N.O. is right up there with supporting abortion or wanting women priests.

Got it! Thanks for the confirmation.

“Sarcastic but fair…”
Well, half is better than none I guess.

Many times it is my friend. Many times it is. Not always, but often.

I’ve seen precious few traditionalists supporting abortion and birth control and never seen a female proclaim the Gospel at a Traditional Mass or concelebrate one for that matter.

Never seen a Barney blessing at a Traditional Mass either.

Oh well, I guess we’re all just behind the times, stuck in that pre-Vatican II mentality where no one knew anything at all.

 

[AngelRose81]

Just to throw this in there of how many in different places receive the Eucharist where…in our parish I’ve noticed that it is about 50% either way. Some, the tongue, some the hand. But something strange I happened to notice is that the ones that receive on the tongue do not drink from the cup but the ones that receive in the hand do. One would think that it would be the other way around!

 

[ncjohn]

Many times it is my friend. Many times it is. Not always, but often.

I’ve seen precious few traditionalists supporting abortion and birth control and never seen a female proclaim the Gospel at a Traditional Mass or concelebrate one for that matter.

Never seen a Barney blessing at a Traditional Mass either.

Oh well, I guess we’re all just behind the times, stuck in that pre-Vatican II mentality where no one knew anything at all.

And all of this has what to do with what?

I believe that one has the option of which way to receive communion. The Church agrees

I believe that one can legitimately prefer an N.O. Mass over a TLM and that there is no inherent difference in reverence. The Church agrees.

I believe that I can prefer more contemporary music rather than Latin Hymns, while not at all disparaging Latin hymns, and that there is nothing inherently better about one or the other. The Church agrees.

I believe it is fine for a woman to wear a head covering–or not to–at her option. The Church agrees.

I believe it is ok to use EMHC’s where there is a true need. The Church agrees.

Yet on every one of these issues, people are taken apart over which subjective preference they have, and more often than not the “taking apart” is being done by those calling themselves “traditionalists”.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t equate a “cafeteria mentality” with any of those things. I have nowhere called for or supported any of the things you noted above, but addressed only the subjective preferences for which the Church offers options. If someone is advocating that those options are not legitimate, and that the Church is wrong in even allowing them, the yes, maybe that is an indication of being “behind the times, stuck in a pre-Vatican II mentality” because while they may have a preference for “tradition”, they are not in line with Church teaching.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

there is no inherent difference in reverence. The Church agrees.

there is nothing inherently better about one or the other. The Church agrees.

Hi John,

I don’t want to add fuel to the fire. . I certainly understand what you are trying to say, I agree for the most part, and I sympathize with your frustration, but maybe you might be overstating your position somewhat in the quoted portion above?

While it is clear to me (and you!) that one can’t say that x or y proposed and allowed by the Church is inherently irreverent, I don’t think it is as clear to me that there can’t be any difference in reverence in the different options proposed for the faithful.

Likewise with merit or artistry, while it is clear to me that one could not say that hymns in one language or another are without any merit, it doesn’t seem clear to me that the Church contemplates the idea that there can be no distinction in the artistic merit, musical worthiness, or transcendence of different modes of expression.

Certainly all the Church proposes is good, but could there still not be a heirarchy of goods? What do you think?

God Bless,
VC

 

[LilyM]

I’ve never had that problem. The Eucharist is usually ingested by the time I return to my seat and if not within a very short time afterwards. What size hosts are you guys using down there anyway? I

I was also under the perhaps mistaken impression that the flour used HAD to be wheat. Is that not the case any longer?

What I call wholewheat flour you may know as wholemeal - its the brown stuff (no grains in it though ). Takes a heck of a lot longer to dissolve in the mouth than the more common and traditionally used white flour.

 

[Servant1]

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?

If the crumbs are there and visible, they are the actual Body and Blood of Christ, right?

Just what IS it that you think mere humans have the power to do that would harm them? What is happening to them? I don’t know. But I know Christ had/has the power to raise from the dead. So he has enough power that nothing I (or anyone else) might inadvertently “do” to his Body and Blood will ultimately hurt him.

Disrespect is in the heart and mind. Disrespect will harm the one who commits the disrespect. It STILL won’t harm the Body and Blood.