Fr. Z: Don't Receive Communion in the Hand

[Dauphin]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf argues that the practice of receiving in the hand is, objectively speaking, a failure to offer due reverence to the Eucharistic species:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/oldie-podcazt-51-communion-in-the-hand/

This podcast might serve as a starting point for a civil discussion about whether the traditional practice is indeed more inherently reverent and respectful. I think Fr. Z’s argument is compelling. In particular, the arguments about the likelihood of fragments of the Eucharist falling or being profaned.

He also addresses the historical roots of receiving on the hand, along with the document of St. Cyril often cited by those who support the practice.

 

[water]

thanks Dauphin for the link, I am listening to it right now.

 

[Spiller]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf argues that the practice of receiving in the hand is, objectively speaking, a failure to offer due reverence to the Eucharistic species:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/oldie-podcazt-51-communion-in-the-hand/

This podcast might serve as a starting point for a civil discussion about whether the traditional practice is indeed more inherently reverent and respectful. I think Fr. Z’s argument is compelling. In particular, the arguments about the likelihood of fragments of the Eucharist falling or being profaned.

He also addresses the historical roots of receiving on the hand, along with the document of St. Cyril often cited by those who support the practice.

Simply put, the Church allows both communion on tongue and in hand at least in the USA. To suggest the Church allows (by indult or not) one method that is inferior to another is absurd.

No matter how we receive communion we must be careful – be it not leaving crumb in our hands; to not letting the host slip from our tongues to not vigorously singing before we have fully consumed the host so specks will not flay out of our mouths.

 

[Dauphin]

Simply put, the Church allows both communion on tongue and in hand at least in the USA. To suggest the Church allows (by indult or not) one method that is inferior to another is absurd.

How so? I don’t think that contention is absurd at all. No one is contesting the fact that Communion in the hand is allowed,but simply arguing that one method is dramatically superior, both in the orientation of the communicant, and in the respect that is offered to the Eucharist and any particles which may fall.

 

[Sure]

Perhaps it would be a good thing for the Church to change this discipline. Far more important than physical posture is one’s interior posture. But, perhaps receiving on the tongue would improve the interior disposition. For now, they both remain legitimate options.

Here’s what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had to say about such debates:

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

 

[Joysong]

Psst …

I just heard that the moderator may have had a heart attack, thinking, “Oh no, not another NO communion in the hand thread!”

This was not to insult, but just to send some humor on a difficult day.

 

[Spiller]

How so? I don’t think that contention is absurd at all. No one is contesting the fact that Communion in the hand is allowed,but simply arguing that one method is dramatically superior, both in the orientation of the communicant, and in the respect that is offered to the Eucharist and any particles which may fall.

How could the Church allow (by indult or not) communion in hand if it was an inferior manner in which to receive communion? You’re suggesting that receiving on tongue is inherently superior yet the Church ignores this and due to some other force and thus allows communion in hand? Balderdash.

I began listening to Fr. Z’s podcast and I stopped when he began talking about consecrated hosts being found in hymnals, sold to satanic groups, etc. A host can be removed from one’s dry mouth and desecrated just as easily as if originally received in one’s hands. His “argument” or example was false.

 

[lovesMary]

Isn’t Fr Z just one priest?Just as priests who advocate for communion in the hand are priests with opposing points of view, right? Although I prefer communion on the tongue, both are allowed. It’s up to the Vatican to decide otherwise. I know many who prefer communion in the hand, they also seem reverant.

There are so many more pressing issues in the Church today, I wonder why this one keeps coming up here as such a focus? Think of the problems in the Church, the priest scandal, lack of vocations, widespead use of contraception, politician supporting abortion, lack of use of confessional, lack of proper catechisis, divisions in the Church, the dying Church in Europe, the list goes on and on…

 

[Spiller]

Psst …

I just heard that the moderator may have had a heart attack, thinking, “Oh no, not another NO communion in the hand thread!”

This was not to insult, but just to send some humor on a difficult day.

LOL! So true. You’d think at some point those that claimed to be so “orthodox” would simply be obedient to what the Church directs/allows and place their focus on how they personally choose to receive Holy Communion. Some people don’t seem to have much faith in the Church and Her decisions.

Instead we are treated to experts who claim their own personal opinions are somehow superior to the Church’s documented direction. How heterodox…

 

[Dauphin]

How could the Church allow (by indult or not) communion in hand if it was an inferior manner in which to receive communion? You’re suggesting that receiving on tongue is inherently superior yet the Church ignores this and due to some other force and thus allows communion in hand? Balderdash.

Again, why balderdash? You’re simply stating the reality of the situation. It’s as if you’ve taken the words out my mouth!

What article of faith requires us to believe that the Church is incapable of offering an indult for an inferior method of Communion? Nothing, as far as I know. You’re not making an argument!

I began listening to Fr. Z’s podcast and I stopped when he began talking about consecrated hosts being found in hymnals, sold to satanic groups, etc. A host can be removed from one’s dry mouth and desecrated just as easily as if originally received in one’s hands. His “argument” or example was false.

It’s extremely difficult and unlikely that a communicant would remove the Eucharist from their own mouth. Most people don’t have dry mouths. The Eucharist begins to dissolve immediately. Removing it would be awkward and downright bizarre. I can’t imagine anyone doing this, quite frankly.

It’s too bad you didn’t listen to the entire podcast. He makes a convincing case.

 

[mattwcu]

I think it would behoove everyone to listen to Fr. Z’s talk and stop arguing about something you haven’t heard. He explains the entire issue thoroughly.

Words like inferior are problematic anyway. You cannot receive “inferiorly” or “superiorly”. All this does is set up a system where someone believes they somehow are better than another for receiving differently.

However, I believe it is probably imprudent, though legitimately allowed, to receive in the hand. And those who know better should receive on the tongue as a matter of prudence.

I am not wearing a Papal Mitre btw. This is just my opinion.

 

[Dauphin]

LOL! So true. You’d think at some point those that claimed to be so “orthodox” would simply be obedient to what the Church directs/allows and place their focus on how they personally choose to receive Holy Communion. Some people don’t seem to have much faith in the Church and Her decisions.

Instead we are treated to experts who claim their own personal opinions are somehow superior to the Church’s documented direction. How heterodox…

Ad hominem attacks don’t address any of his claims. In what document does the Church require all Catholics to hold that reception on the hand is good? The Church requires us to have faith in the doctrines and moral teachings of the Magisterium, not in disciplinary judgments.

The Church had made no authoritative judgments saying that reception on the hand is superior or even good. In fact, quite the opposite. Therefore, criticizing reception on the hand does not even contradict the non-binding judgments of the Church, which have never lauded reception on the hand.

 

[Dauphin]

There are so many more pressing issues in the Church today, I wonder why this one keeps coming up here as such a focus? Think of the problems in the Church, the priest scandal, lack of vocations, widespead use of contraception, politician supporting abortion, lack of use of confessional, lack of proper catechisis, divisions in the Church, the dying Church in Europe, the list goes on and on…

Irreverence for the Eucharist is the source of all these problems. Proper worship given to God and correct orientation during the liturgy is central to the life of the Church. Save the liturgy, save the world.

Reception on the hand plays a key role in the decline in belief in the real presence, which is central to the liturgy. I have no doubt that you can receive in the hand with reverence, as I did in the past, but the indult has certainly lessened respect overall for the Eucharistic species. It’s shocking that there are people who bury their heads in the sand and deny this reality.

 

[Lepanto]

What gets me is when many of the hand/taker crowd, after feeding themselves with the Body of Christ, start picking at their “throne” hand with their other hand, or even start licking their “throne” hand with their tongue, as if to pick off any real or perceived particles. I see these practices all the time. Not only illogical from a reverence perspective, but downright bizarre.

Why not just receive on the tongue instead and eliminate the particle issue from the start?

 

[Spiller]

Dauphin:
Again, why balderdash? You’re simply stating the reality of the situation. It’s as if you’ve taken the words out my mouth!

What article of faith requires us to believe that the Church is incapable of offering an indult for an inferior method of Communion? Nothing, as far as I know. You’re not making an argument!

It’s extremely difficult and unlikely that a communicant would remove the Eucharist from their own mouth. Most people don’t have dry mouths. The Eucharist begins to dissolve immediately. Removing it would be awkward and downright bizarre. I can’t imagine anyone doing this, quite frankly.

It’s too bad you didn’t listen to the entire podcast. He makes a convincing case.
Why do people make comments on these forums as if their opinions trump what the Church directs or allows?

The Church allows communion-in-hand at least in the USA. NO WAY would the Church allow an “inferior” method, anywhere. No “argument” needed – the Church has given us direction on this matter. Finis.

Also your personal opinion of “extremely difficult and unlikely that a communicant would remove the Eucharist from their own mouth” is simply wrong. It’s VERY easy to do – sadly I did it as a child so I could see Jesus up close. Further if one wanted to steal a host, I see no better way than to receive on the tongue (so as not cause any suspicion) and then simply remove it when they got outside or back to their pew.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf argues that the practice of receiving in the hand is, objectively speaking, a failure to offer due reverence to the Eucharistic species:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/oldie-podcazt-51-communion-in-the-hand/

This podcast might serve as a starting point for a civil discussion about whether the traditional practice is indeed more inherently reverent and respectful. I think Fr. Z’s argument is compelling. In particular, the arguments about the likelihood of fragments of the Eucharist falling or being profaned.

He also addresses the historical roots of receiving on the hand, along with the document of St. Cyril often cited by those who support the practice.

I will be happy to kneel at an altar rail and receive on the tongue, no problem here.

 

[Digitonomy]

How long is the podcast?

Instead we are treated to experts who claim their own personal opinions are somehow superior to the Church’s documented direction. How heterodox…

I hope you are using that term sarcastically. It is in no way heterodox to discern for oneself whether Church discipline is wise or unwise.

Further if one wanted to steal a host, I see no better way than to receive on the tongue (so as not cause any suspicion) and then simply remove it when they got outside or back to their pew.

True. I saw a movie once where a woman did this, then fed it to her cat back home.

 

[Lepanto]

The Church allows communion-in-hand at least in the USA.

Why is it not the universal norm, and hence permitted around the entire world?

Are some countries so special that they are allowed to have their own liturgical exceptions?

 

[Dauphin]

Why do people make comments on these forums as if their opinions trump what the Church directs or allows?

I certainly haven’t made such a comment. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone deny that the faithful have the right to receive the Eucharist on the hand. That would be a denial of the Church’s authority. Arguing that it is an imprudent practice, however, is not contrary to the Church’s direction.

The Church allows communion-in-hand at least in the USA. NO WAY would the Church allow an “inferior” method, anywhere. No “argument” needed – the Church has given us direction on this matter. Finis.

Why? Why? You haven’t answered the why! Why is the Church incapable of allowing an inferior method of Communion? Cite some Church document to back up these claims. Until you’ve made a case for this, I won’t be able to offer some sort of refutation!

Also your personal opinion of “extremely difficult and unlikely that a communicant would remove the Eucharist from their own mouth” is simply wrong. It’s VERY easy to do – sadly I did it as a child so I could see Jesus up close. Further if one wanted to steal a host, I see no better way than to receive on the tongue (so as not cause any suspicion) and then simply remove it when they got outside or back to their pew.

Maybe you have a very dry mouth, but for most people this is quite impossible, not to mention downright strange.

 

[lovesMary]

Irreverence for the Eucharist is the source of all these problems. Proper worship given to God and correct orientation during the liturgy is central to the life of the Church. Save the liturgy, save the world…

Honestly, do you really believe what you just said?

I find your statement to be outrageous. You really think that outward adherence to a certain liturgical form will rectify the complex problems in the world?

What about all the horrors that have occured in the world before Vatican II? It’s not as if sin originated post-Vatican II.

Also, the moral breakdown in Western society has been due cultural changes brought about in the technological, information age of rapid social change. The invention of reliable birth control methods, womens movement, civil rights movement, jet travel leading to cross-cultural pollenization at an unheard of rate, the list of this also goes on and on.