K
Kendy
Guest
Some people seem really offended by others receiving communion on the hand. Why? Why does it matter?
Kendy
Kendy
- Status
M
Magicsilence
Guest
It is GOD.
Some people feel uncomfortable handling him like food.
IN Christ.
Andre.
Some people feel uncomfortable handling him like food.
IN Christ.
Andre.
B
buffalo
Guest
Worthiness.
…and only the Priests fingers are blessed.
…and only the Priests fingers are blessed.
K
Kendy
Guest
Are you not treating Him like food when you consume Him?
E
edward_george
Guest
Jesus said “eat my flesh…drink my blood.” He did not say “fondle me like a potato chip.”
I remember reading somewhere that it has something to do with only a priest being able to handle a sacrifice–and the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
-ACEGC
I remember reading somewhere that it has something to do with only a priest being able to handle a sacrifice–and the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
-ACEGC
M
mikew262
Guest
It doesn’t matter.
B
buffalo
Guest
This may help:Are you not treating Him like food when you consume Him?
Transubstantiation - it has to do with the accidents after Consecration -
TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR BEGINNERS
from the article:
Transubstantiation is unique. It is not a simple conversion. It is a substantial conversion. One thing is substantially or essentially converted into another thing. There is no question here of a merely accidental conversion, like water into steam. Nor is it something like the metamorphosis of insects or the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor. There is no other change exactly like transubstantiation. In transubstantiation only the substance is converted into another substance, while the accidents remain the same. At Cana substance was changed into substance, but the accidents of water were changed also into the accidents of wine.
H
hurst
Guest
People who know better should avoid Communion in the hand, out of reverence for the great sacrament. This includes the consideration of the need to consume every crumb, among other things.
The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
Summa Theologica
Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
newadvent.org/summa/408203.htm
See also:
Summa Theologica
Whether the actions performed in celebrating this sacrament are becoming?
newadvent.org/summa/408305.htm
However, one cannot judge others in this matter because the Church has allowed this practice via dispensation for the past 30 years or so, in spite of the fact that how that dispensation came about is itself an issue of contention.
There are a number of practices that have become common in the Church today which are otherwise only allowed in urgent situations. They are clearly matter of abuse, and those who are aware of it lament and pray while being otherwise helpless to make any immediate change.
Let us join our sorrow to that of Mary at the foot of the Cross, as we see the Body of Our Lord disfigured by abuse, while not being able to do anything to stop it. Let our hearts be pierced with Mary’s, as we witness God allowing this, to manifest the hearts of many, as was fortold regarding the actual crucifixion long ago.
Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; 35 And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.
hurst
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The words of John Paul II:
"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized."
It’s authorized here. Those who rec. in the hand with “profound reverence and devotion” cannot be accused of any bad motive. If there are people who don’t want to rec. in the hand, they don’t have to. It’s neither more or less holy to do either. And it isn’t an abuse, as it’s permitted by the Church.
Also, this is a duplicate thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1268707#post1268707
"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized."
It’s authorized here. Those who rec. in the hand with “profound reverence and devotion” cannot be accused of any bad motive. If there are people who don’t want to rec. in the hand, they don’t have to. It’s neither more or less holy to do either. And it isn’t an abuse, as it’s permitted by the Church.
Also, this is a duplicate thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1268707#post1268707
K
Kendy
Guest
Thanks
.Kendy
C
chrisb
Guest
Grace and Peace be with you all,
Little by little we have bartered away what is Sacred in our Tradition as a means to appease Protestantism and the West. Vatican II was in a lot a ways a garage sale of our all that was held Sacred for almost 2000 years. It is a real shame which is why I am at a Tridentine Parish and seriously questioning the Papacy for Orthodoxy who appear to take the Sacred Traditions of our Church seriously.
I hope I have not offended anyone, that was not my intention.
Peace and God Bless.
Little by little we have bartered away what is Sacred in our Tradition as a means to appease Protestantism and the West. Vatican II was in a lot a ways a garage sale of our all that was held Sacred for almost 2000 years. It is a real shame which is why I am at a Tridentine Parish and seriously questioning the Papacy for Orthodoxy who appear to take the Sacred Traditions of our Church seriously.
I hope I have not offended anyone, that was not my intention.
Peace and God Bless.
M
Mickey
Guest
A good number of Catholics take their Sacred Tradition quite seriously also.
Blessings,
Mickey
M
m134e5
Guest
Please don’t do that! Jesus promised the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church- he never promised they wouldn’t wound it. They may come close to destroying the Church, but they won’t. The traditions (like communion on the tongue, Latin, etc.) are wonderful things, but the Church can go on without them. Reverence is good, but it is not a requirement for validity of Sacraments. Pray for a restoration of the sense of the sacred- prayers are answered- people seem to forget this.
S
steveandersen
Guest
He also said, “Take this and eat” I don’t know what the sense is in Aramaic or Greek but in English that suggests being handed something.
I’m not expert but for some reason I never envisioned the Apostles at the Last Supper all sitting there mouths agape.
I imagine that they held out their hands.
IIRC During the consecration I’ve heard the words “…gave it to His Apostles…” as well as “…handed it to His Disciples…”
as for only a preist handling a sacrifice what is the difference between hand or tounge?
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
if one is offended by that and voices his or opinion about that, isnt thant wrong?
I mean we are allowed to receive it with our hands from a preist and sadley today from a eucharistic minister whom is not a preist.
I feel weird sometimes taking communion from a eucaharistic minister, sometimes they are in their early 20’s. So I make a consicence effort to sit where I can walk down to the Priest.
I mean we are allowed to receive it with our hands from a preist and sadley today from a eucharistic minister whom is not a preist.
I feel weird sometimes taking communion from a eucaharistic minister, sometimes they are in their early 20’s. So I make a consicence effort to sit where I can walk down to the Priest.
K
Kendy
Guest
I am a post vatican II baby and I am just now trying to return to church. I will admit that I don’t understand the reasons behind all of the churches tradition but is there possibly a distinction to be made between Sacred Tradition and just regular tradition. I attended a Tridentine mass a few weeks ago and it was the most alienating experience I have ever had. It was not God with us but God removed from us, God not looking at our uglyness. Personally, I can understand why that tradition drove people to protestant churches.
I don’t receive communion in my hand out of lack of reverence, but because I know exactly who I am holding. I get excited just thinking about it
.Kendy
M
Mickey
Guest
**“Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” **
**(St Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 23:22).
**
**(St Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 23:22).
**
Y
YADA
Guest
In the early church, reception of the Eucharist on the hand was normative. It is possible to receive in a reverent manner, whether it is on the tongue or on the hand. Similarly it is possible to receive irreverently each way.
Some posts imply that to receive the Eucharist on the hand is an inovation that is in opposition to 2000 years of practice and Tradition. That is not the case. Reception on the tongue was a change that was made to combat abuses, not because it was more sacred or more reverent.
St Cyril of Jerusalem [ca. AD 35 - 386]wrote, preached, and or taught the neophytes [those newly received into the Church] on the reception of the Eucharist:
"In approaching, therefore, do not come up with yor wrists apart or your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are abot to receive into it a King. And having hallowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the “Amen”. Then, cautiously sanctifying your eyes by the the touch of the Holy Body, partake, being careful lest you lose anything of it. For whatever you might lose is clearly a loss to you from one of our own members. Tell me: if someone gave you some grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, lest you might lose something of them and thereby suffer a loss? Will you not, therefore, be much more careful in keeping watch over what is more precious than gold and gems, so that not a particle of it may escape you?"
Reception on the tongue was the result of abuses like using the Eucharist in a superstitious manner as a talisman or good luck charm or for demonic worship.
There are factions that despise any renewal of the liturgy or change. The Latin language used at Mass prior to Vatican II was an ‘inovation’ that entered into the Tradition, it was a change from the original language(s) used to offer the Mass. At the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, the language used was not latin but aramaic or hebrew. Then it was Greek, the common tongue of the more gentile than jewish Christian Church. Later followed by the official language of the Roman Empire, Latin.
In the early church, reception on the hand was normative. Now we have a choice, both are valid, both are or should be equally reverent. St Cyril certainly thought so.
Some posts imply that to receive the Eucharist on the hand is an inovation that is in opposition to 2000 years of practice and Tradition. That is not the case. Reception on the tongue was a change that was made to combat abuses, not because it was more sacred or more reverent.
St Cyril of Jerusalem [ca. AD 35 - 386]wrote, preached, and or taught the neophytes [those newly received into the Church] on the reception of the Eucharist:
"In approaching, therefore, do not come up with yor wrists apart or your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are abot to receive into it a King. And having hallowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the “Amen”. Then, cautiously sanctifying your eyes by the the touch of the Holy Body, partake, being careful lest you lose anything of it. For whatever you might lose is clearly a loss to you from one of our own members. Tell me: if someone gave you some grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, lest you might lose something of them and thereby suffer a loss? Will you not, therefore, be much more careful in keeping watch over what is more precious than gold and gems, so that not a particle of it may escape you?"
Reception on the tongue was the result of abuses like using the Eucharist in a superstitious manner as a talisman or good luck charm or for demonic worship.
There are factions that despise any renewal of the liturgy or change. The Latin language used at Mass prior to Vatican II was an ‘inovation’ that entered into the Tradition, it was a change from the original language(s) used to offer the Mass. At the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, the language used was not latin but aramaic or hebrew. Then it was Greek, the common tongue of the more gentile than jewish Christian Church. Later followed by the official language of the Roman Empire, Latin.
In the early church, reception on the hand was normative. Now we have a choice, both are valid, both are or should be equally reverent. St Cyril certainly thought so.
M
mercygate
Guest
I LOVE the Tridentine Mass – but Kendy, you’re right: the silent canon is really distancing. My Latin is very good. And I am very familiar with the TLM (I have carefully studied an instructional video for Priests), but when I attend the TLM, I still have trouble keeping up.I am a post vatican II baby and I am just now trying to return to church. I will admit that I don’t understand the reasons behind all of the churches tradition but is there possibly a distinction to be made between Sacred Tradition and just regular tradition. I attended a Tridentine mass a few weeks ago and it was the most alienating experience I have ever had. It was not God with us but God removed from us, God not looking at our uglyness. Personally, I can understand why that tradition drove people to protestant churches.
I don’t receive communion in my hand out of lack of reverence, but because I know exactly who I am holding. I get excited just thinking about it
Kendy
I alternate receiving on the hand/tongue depending on the circumstances, which can include my frame of mind. When I receive in the hand, I break protocol :tsktsk: and kiss the host before I place it in my mouth. (Picked that up from a Dominican hermit-nun where I go on retreat every year.) In Europe, I receive on the tongue because that is their custom.
You are wise to decide that this is not going to be a biggie for you.
R
Roche42
Guest
Just wondering, what does everyone do when you have no other option but to receive the blessed sacrament from an EMHC, receive it on the tongue still, or on the hand?
- Status