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

[PKinsale]

NO WAY would the Church allow an “inferior” method, anywhere. No “argument” needed – the Church has given us direction on this matter. Finis.

There are other examples where the Church has allowed the inferior. Just look at some of the Vatican-approved English translations! Ever compare the U.S. version of, say, the Magnificat to the British version?

Compare the UK and USA versions of the prayers here in the Compendium of the Catechism.
%20COMMON%20PRAYERS)

 

[Dauphin]

Honestly, do you really believe what you just said?

Yes!

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?

YES! We cannot solve the problems of the world! Only God! We must turn towards the Lord for solutions, not in upon ourselves.

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

Who said the liturgy was always perfectly executed before Vatican II? Who can deny though, that on a personal level, moral standards have dropped dramatically among Catholics?

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.

All of these changes would have been irrelevent if the Christian people had been focused completely on the glory of the Lord!

“He to whom the eternal Word speaketh is set at liberty from a multitude of opinions” - Thomas a Kempis

The liturgy is the centre and summit of Christian life. Let’s not fall into the secular notion of the liturgy as a bunch of human actions that produce no result in the “real world”. If we turn in humility towards the Lord, if we offer him due reverence and place of pride, then the world will indeed be saved.

I urge you to read Fr. Z’s discussion on the topic:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/01/save-the-liturgy-save-the-world/

 

[drafdog]

The last time I looked the word “eucharist” meant “breaking bread.” And when we break bread, we get… CRUMBS. It has been this way in the church since Jesus sat in an upper room in Jerusalem to celebrate his last Passover with his friends. I don’t think God did this without considering the CRUMBS from the broken bread. If God isn’t worried about it, why are we? This is what happens when we let the Greek philosophers push their ideas to the breaking point. In the final analysis you get obsession, panic and scrupulosity.

Matthew

 

[mattwcu]

Um…

Eucharist means “thanksgiving”…not breaking bread. Doesn’t it?

 

[Dauphin]

The last time I looked the word “eucharist” meant “breaking bread.” And when we break bread, we get… CRUMBS. It has been this way in the church since Jesus sat in an upper room in Jerusalem to celebrate his last Passover with his friends. I don’t think God did this without considering the CRUMBS from the broken bread. If God isn’t worried about it, why are we? This is what happens when we let the Greek philosophers push their ideas to the breaking point. In the final analysis you get obsession, panic and scrupulosity.

Matthew

If each particle of the Host is Christ whole and entire, as the Church has infallibly defined, then each particle of the host deserves the due reverence which we give to God. If you believe the solemn definitions of the Church are just ramblings of obsessive philosophers, then I submit that you’re in the wrong Church.

In His humility, Christ gave His Body and Blood knowing what would happen to them, and how thoroughly they would be profaned. However, this humility doesn’t give us licence to treat the Eucharist with disrespect. Quite the opposite - it should provoke us to even greater reverence for this infinitely loving God.

 

[snhs]

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.

Sorry but your first statement is just wrong. The Church allows inferior practices in a lot of things. For example I am allowed to serve as an Altar boy, but only if there are not enough Acolytes. Therefore when I act as an Altar Server it is as an inferior substitute for the proper Minister of that office. The same is true of Readers, EM etc. The fact is that in a perfect world it would be only ordained ministers who distributed Communion. As it is the Church allows EMs to leave the Church with Communion to take it to the sick. That is an inferior practice because the Host is not in the care of an ordained Minister. If they will allow lay people to do that then I don’t see anything which would prevent the Church allowing an ‘inferior’ method of receiving Communion. Unless you can provide documentation to the contrary, as others have requested.

The only ironclad method is not distributing the Host. Failing that we must take every reasonable precaution to ensure nothing untoward happens. Yes people can remove it from their mouth, but they have a far greater opportunity, not to mention temptation, to do so if it is being handed to them. Depending on the type of Communion Bread a Parish uses for the Consecration they disintegrate quite quickly. The bread we use at my Parish would be just about impossible to remove after 30s or so in the mouth. Besides which there are people around when you have returned to the pews there is a reasonable chance at least someone will see you and try to stop you or report it to someone to prevent a recurrence. Sadly that is not as likely to happen if someone can palm it and stick it in a purse/pocket/sleeve.

 

[lovesMary]

This attitude, Dauphlin, is just what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. He he taught that outward ritual observance did not neccessarily lead to inner purity and holiness.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your arguements. Liturgy is how we pray and worship together, but Jesus teaches us that it is our hearts that must be circumsized, it is our thoughts and actions that lead to holiness. He established the Church with it’s rituals for worship, but what he talked about in his sermons is exhortations towards personal holiness.

***Matthew 15

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men’.”***

 

[mattwcu]

Could someone please explain to me the benefits they believe are present when receiving Our Lord in the hand as opposed to the tongue?

So far, its been a back and forth argument over whether it is correct. (actually, I don’t eve know if that is what is begin argued, to tell you the truth…) But I have never heard anyone explain to me why it is beneficial to receive in this manner.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Could someone please explain to me the benefits they believe are present when receiving Our Lord in the hand as opposed to the tongue?

So far, its been a back and forth argument over whether it is correct. (actually, I don’t eve know if that is what is begin argued, to tell you the truth…) But I have never heard anyone explain to me why it is beneficial to receive in this manner.

Receiving the Blessed Sacrament is what is beneficial - tongue or hand have just as much possibility of mishap and in themselves offer no special benefit.

 

[Lepanto]

This attitude, Dauphlin, is just what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. He he taught that outward ritual observance did not neccessarily lead to inner purity and holiness.

Why can’t we have both outward ritual observance AND inner purity and holiness? Why are you assuming that they are mutually exclusive? To be dismissive of outward ritual observance is an error of protestantism.

Ever heard of the ancient Church maxim? Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (As We Worship, So we will Live)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_orandi,_lex_credendi

 

[tessi]

This attitude, Dauphlin, is just what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. He he taught that outward ritual observance did not neccessarily lead to inner purity and holiness.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your arguements. Liturgy is how we pray and worship together
lovesMary;3596537:

You don’t quite understand the Liturgy. The Mass is not a ritual. It is a gift from God, it’s God himself. The outward expresses the inward, you see outside what you have inside. A priest not dying with Jesus on the altar is not fullfilling his task.
You may not believe it but without the Mass there wouldn’t be any heaven for us, it’s quite clear that altering the Liturgy has caused terrible damage to humanity.

 

[Dauphin]

This attitude, Dauphlin, is just what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. He he taught that outward ritual observance did not neccessarily lead to inner purity and holiness.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your arguements. Liturgy is how we pray and worship together, but Jesus teaches us that it is our hearts that must be circumsized, it is our thoughts and actions that lead to holiness. He established the Church with it’s rituals for worship, but what he talked about in his sermons is exhortations towards personal holiness.

Matthew 15

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father and mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men’.”

The prescriptions of the liturgy do not “deny the word of God for the sake of traditition”. Nothing in this passage contradicts the importance of uniting our external actions with our internal disposition. Your interpretation of these words is an invitation to liturgical relativism and anarchy, in which any liturgical expression is just as good as the next, as long as we have the correct interior disposition.

Want to dress up as a clown during the Mass? If that reminds you of the place of holy laughter and is conducive to your spirituality, why not? Want the priest to wear a cheese on his head? If that reminds us of the holes in our own lives which can only be filled by Christ, why not?

It’s precisely this attitude that has lead to the decline in reverence and proper orientation towards God during the liturgy. It’s the approach that has been so thoroughly condemned by the current Pope, and by so many before him. Internal disposition cannot be divorced from external practice.

Liturgy isn’t just how we “pray and worship together”. The Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ, which bears genuine fruits for the world. It brings the people of God into Christ’s own Body, so that He may live in them and them in He. It is the centre and summit of the life of the Church - the nourishment which God offers for a life lived according to the Spirit.

Personal holiness and good liturgy are intrinsically connected, to such a degree that in taking one without the other, we are lead into error. Take the actions of the liturgy without the interior disposition, and we are lead into the errors of the pharisees. Take the internal dispositions without the prescriptions of the liturgy and we are lead into the liturgical relativism that has been so destructive to the life of the Church.

 

[mattwcu]

Receiving the Blessed Sacrament is what is beneficial - tongue or hand have just as much possibility of mishap and in themselves offer no special benefit.

Hrm. Receiving either way is beneficial. However, people who receive on the tongue kneeling will tell you of its added benefits. Personally, I feel it is beneficial because among other things, it reminds me of my need for humility. It shows the place of receiver, being fed by a Priest in persona Christi as a downward motion. “Henceforth we feed on Angel’s food!”.

Our outward actions and things do matter to us. Otherwise we would have no need of these outward signs (sacraments).

However, given that so many on here seem to feel that receiving in the hand is a good way. I would really like to hear, without arguing, why it is beneficial for them as opposed to receiving kneeling on the tongue? Perhaps hearing of your spiritual benefits will calm those driving the arguments back and forth and we can then talk about this issue in a more charitable way.

 

[Lepanto]

Liturgy is how we pray and worship together

You don’t need liturgy to pray and worship together at all. A simple group bible study would accomplish that.

Of course, no bible study will confect the Eucharist – so yes, liturgy DOES matter.

 

[Lepanto]

Hrm. Receiving either way is beneficial. However, people who receive on the tongue kneeling will tell you of its added benefits. Personally, I feel it is beneficial because among other things, it reminds me of my need for humility. It shows the place of receiver, being fed by a Priest in persona Christi as a downward motion. “Henceforth we feed on Angel’s food!”.

Our outward actions and things do matter to us. Otherwise we would have no need of these outward signs (sacraments).

However, given that so many on here seem to feel that receiving in the hand is a good way. I would really like to hear, without arguing, why it is beneficial for them as opposed to receiving kneeling on the tongue? Perhaps hearing of your spiritual benefits will calm those driving the arguments back and forth and we can then talk about this issue in a more charitable way.

A seemingly small but important distinction:

One receives communion on the tongue.

One takes communion by the hand.

 

[dcb188]

May I just ask if anyone here thinks that our Lord cares if His body is received by the hand or on the tongue as long as it is received reverentially and worthily.

 

[LilyM]

Could someone please explain to me the benefits they believe are present when receiving Our Lord in the hand as opposed to the tongue?

So far, its been a back and forth argument over whether it is correct. (actually, I don’t eve know if that is what is begin argued, to tell you the truth…) But I have never heard anyone explain to me why it is beneficial to receive in this manner.

Because it gives you the inestimable privilege of touching Our Lord, as did the woman who was healed of her hemmorhage by touching the hem of His cloak, as did St Thomas who received the gift of faith by touching the wounds in His hands and side! And to be touched by Him as were the countless lepers and others who were healed by His touch.

And I certainly don’t TAKE anything when I receive in the hand - not like I snatch Him out of the ciborium or anything! I do just that, receive, from the priest, and as humbly, reverently and thankfully as possible.

 

[Lepanto]

May I just ask if anyone here thinks that our Lord cares if His body is received by the hand or on the tongue as long as it is received reverentially and worthily.

Nobody can dare to read His mind, but the Church – God’s instrument on earth – has spoken on this matter.

And if you don’t accept that, how would we even know that Christ wants us to receive Him “reverentially and worthily”?

 

[dcb188]

I think I can be quite certain that Our Lord would want us to receive Him reverentially and worthily, and that just as a matter of intuition, deduction, but most of all, common sense.

 

[Dauphin]

May I just ask if anyone here thinks that our Lord cares if His body is received by the hand or on the tongue as long as it is received reverentially and worthily.

Of course the Lord cares! Since reception on the tongue is an objectively and inherently more reverent method, there should be no doubt that it is the Divine will to see this practice made universal. However, reception in the hand is not sinful as long as it is not done out of malice or disrespect for the Eucharist.