Communion on the Hand - Why better?

[CarolVP]

Why is Communion on the hand better than on the tongue?

I’m curious. I noticed a comment, in one of the threads, denigrating Communion on the tongue. This implies that Communion on the hand must be better. I’d like to know why? How is it better? Or, what’s so wrong about Holy Communion on the tongue?

I would have thought that having the sacred Host placed on your hand, leaving minute, or not so minute, traces, would risk a certain disrespect. Are the communicant’s fingers, which then lift the Host to the tongue, clean enough for such a sacred trust?

I heard that Communion on the Hand began in disobedience. Once the practice spread, it became almost impossible for the Vatican to disallow it, and so the policy was eventually (albeit reluctantly) permitted.

 

[Joan_M]

Why is Communion on the hand better than on the tongue?

I’m curious. I noticed a comment, in one of the threads, denigrating Communion on the tongue. This implies that Communion on the hand must be better. I’d like to know why? How is it better? Or, what’s so wrong about Holy Communion on the tongue?

I would have thought that having the sacred Host placed on your hand, leaving minute, or not so minute, traces, would risk a certain disrespect. Are the communicant’s fingers, which then lift the Host to the tongue, clean enough for such a sacred trust?

I heard that Communion on the Hand began in disobedience. Once the practice spread, it became almost impossible for the Vatican to disallow it, and so the policy was eventually (albeit reluctantly) permitted.

Communion on the tongue is NOT better than on the tongue. It has been allowed by the church, so it is legitimate. However, as you heard, it had started in a some places without permission. It it had been considered completely wrong, permission would never have been given.

Those who wanted it permitted pushed that it was received in the hand in the early centuries. I had found a document, years ago, that dealt with that (unfortunately, I have not been able to find it again) that stated that Communion was received in the hand in the days of persecution, as people needed to take Communion to those who were in hiding and would have had to take it to, and give it to them with their hands, Shortly after the persecutions were over (after Constantine freed Christianity) Communion in the hand stopped and people only received on the tongue - until the 20th century!

 

[Corki]

There is nothing wrong with Communion on the tongue. It is the universal norm of the Church for receiving Communion.

In many countries and dioceses, Communion in the hand is also allowed. It is not wrong either. It would only be wrong if you were in one of those countries that did not allow Communion in the hand.

How the practice started or spread is largely irrelevant except as a study of Church History.

 

[truetofaith]

The only reason I object to communion in the hand is …I’ve seen young children & an occasional adult, hold the Host in their hand & not consume it until they returned to their seat or on the way to their seat.
Also saw it dropped on the floor because of this.
Less danger of this happening when receiving on the tongue!

 

[Neofight]

Tongue or hand better?

Don’t even go there.

ANYONE engaging in a argument that one is better than the other is scandalizing the Blessed Sacrament, and may place their salvation in serious jeopardy…such arguments are spawned and encouraged by the evil one.

 

[seagal]

One method for receiving Holy Eucharist is not better than another, it’s a matter of personal preference. When I was young communion on the tongue was the norm. When we were given the option after Vatican II, I was glad because I was always uncomfortable about someone putting their fingers in my mouth (or very nearly anyway). I notice that the younger generation is being taught to receive communion on the tongue again, and a lot of people in my parish whom I would consider very pious also receive on the tongue. I’m still uncomfortable about it so I probably won’t change. Again, personal preference.

 

[christofirst]

For me, receiving Communion on the tongue emphasizes Jesus’ Divinity, and our total reliance on God, like a chick being fed by its mother. Receiving communion on the hand reminds me of our shared humanity: as Jesus, God became man, so that we might become God. Both ways of receiving can be very edifying, each in it’s own way, if we truly focus on the awesome privilege in which we partake. Seen this way, I do not consider one way better than the other. Also, over time, the pendulum seems to swing from a more vertical emphasis (acknowledging the Divine) to the equally true horizontal aspect (our shared humanity with Jesus). It would not surprise me if receiving Communion on the tongue was one day the norm again in the U.S. and elsewhere. These practices seem to change as the need arises.

 

[OraLabora]

In the hand is permissible where I live. It is therefore licit and is my preference. Some may prefer on the tongue and that is their right too. There’s no need for either the COTT or CITH folks to say the why of their preference nor does one need to defend that preference from those who would disparage one form or the other. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

 

[truetofaith]

Tongue or hand better?

Don’t even go there.

ANYONE engaging in a argument that one is better than the other is scandalizing the Blessed Sacrament, and may place their salvation in serious jeopardy…such arguments are spawned and encouraged by the evil one.

I doubt that discussing this subject has anything to do with committing sin & losing salvation! :dts:

 

[10gr8kids]

I heard that Communion on the Hand began in disobedience. Once the practice spread, it became almost impossible for the Vatican to disallow it, and so the policy was eventually (albeit reluctantly) permitted.

Source: catholicnewsagency.com/resources/roman-missal-3rd-edition/bishops/the-manner-of-receiving-holy-communion/

Reception of holy Communion on the tongue has been a tradition of the Church for more than 15 centuries.

It is interesting that for the first 5 centuries the faithful received the Eucharist in their hand. If someone wants to receive on their tongue because they feel it is more respectful, that’s great. If the Church allows us to recieve on the hand, as Christ and the first apostles allowed, that’s great too.

 

[Neofight]

I doubt that discussing this subject has anything to do with committing sin & losing salvation! :dts:

Read a little closer…there is a difference between arguing and discussing…an argument would advance one method over the other, and that may well be sinful, not by claiming one is better, but implying one is not licit.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It makes no difference which one you do. Just make sure with CITH you don’t have your hands covered in paint…

If you are sick and your country allows CITH that’s what I would do. I would assume you are less likely to spread germs if the priest’s hand accidentally touches your hand vs your tongue.

 

[truetofaith]

Read a little closer…there is a difference between arguing and discussing…an argument would advance one method over the other, and that may well be sinful, not by claiming one is better, but implying one is not licit.

I did read it closely and that’s why I said discussing…no one is saying any method is illicit.

Like I said earlier :

The only reason I object to communion in the hand is …I’ve seen young children & an occasional adult, hold the Host in their hand & not consume it until they returned to their seat or on the way to their seat.
Also saw it dropped on the floor because of this.
Less danger of this happening when receiving on the tongue!

I receive in the hand, but in certain instances, on the tongue would be preferable.