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

[dcb188]

How would receiving the Host in the hand be with malice or disrespect? And more importantly, why doesn’t the Church immediately ban this practice re receiving the Eucharist by hand? If it is disrespectful, it ought to be immediately banned. I did not see any mention of this in the NT, so it puzzles me but I want to learn.

 

[pnewton]

I have never once found loose fragments that might risk being profaned. This is only my personal experience, but it leads me personally to disregard that particular argument.

 

[Lepanto]

I have never once found loose fragments that might risk being profaned. This is only my personal experience, but it leads me personally to disregard that particular argument.

As a sacristan at my local parish, I can assure you that there are plenty of crumbs involved.

Anyone who has worked as a sacristan can corroborate this.

 

[Dauphin]

How would receiving the Host in the hand be with malice or disrespect?

For example, if someone believes themselves “equal” with the Lord and believes that the Eucharist is “just bread”, and therefore receives on the hand as a demonstration of this conviction, this would be an example of receiving with malice and disrespect.

And more importantly, why doesn’t the Church immediately ban this practice re receiving the Eucharist by hand?

There are significant efforts at the highest levels of the Church to see this happen. Pay close attention the the work of Archbishop Ranjith. Unfortunately, the Church doesn’t work very quickly.

If it is disrespectful, it ought to be immediately banned. I did not see any mention of this in the NT, so it puzzles me but I want to learn.

The New Testament mentions only how priests received Holy Communion, so we can’t really take much from it. I believe Fr. Z addresses the historical issues and teachings of the Church on this matter much better than I could. Just listen to the podcast if you’re interested.

 

[japhy]

From Memoriale Domini:In addition, this manner of communicating [on the tongue], which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which “the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way,” will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: “If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members.”
If receiving on the tongue gives, in the estimation of the Church, “more effective insurance” against profanation than receiving in the hand, I’d say that’s a measure of superiority.

 

[Spiller]

How long is the podcast?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.**True. I saw a movie once where a woman did this, then fed it to her cat back home.

Wrong.

It’s not your responsibility to “discern” if an instruction from the Church is “wise or unwise” – but that’s between you and God as it’s certainly not going to negatively impact others.

However when Catholics publically present their personal opinions as if they are somehow superior to what the Church actually directs then we have a big problem.

If you are in the USA you have a choice on how to receive communion. That’s fully up to you. But to suggest communion in hand is in anyway inferior is simply wrong.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

A seemingly small but important distinction:

One receives communion on the tongue.

One takes communion by the hand.

Where does the CHURCH teach this distinction?

 

[wow]

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.

Thank you for posting this.

I watched the Pope celebrate Mass while he was in the US and noticed he gave Communion on the tongue and in the hand as the recipient indicated. If the Pope accepts either, I don’t see a problem with it.

If he decrees differently, I will surely obey.

I have a concern about receiving on my tongue. I wear dentures and have a fear they would slip at the wrong time and cause an accident.

Believe me when I say, I have a great reverence and adoration when receiving the body of Christ in my hand.

It surprises me that some people can see in other people’s hearts and tell whether they are receiving reverently enough.

I would also like to add that Christ celebrated the first Communion as evident in the scriptures.

Mat 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.

Mar 14:22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body.

1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

It appears our Lord did not have a problem with His body being received in the hand.

 

[snhs]

Wrong.

It’s not your responsibility to “discern” if an instruction from the Church is “wise or unwise” – but that’s between you and God as it’s certainly not going to negatively impact others.

However when Catholics publically present their personal opinions as if they are somehow superior to what the Church actually directs then we have a big problem.

If you are in the USA you have a choice on how to receive communion. That’s fully up to you. But to suggest communion in hand is in anyway inferior is simply wrong.

This is not about an instruction from the Church though, it is just something which they have allowed. We can discern whether we consider it wise or unwise to follow it and on that basis we decided which position we support.

The Church states that it is “prescribed by custom”, as japhy has quoted.

Church teaching has said for two thousand years or so that we should receive in the mouth. Was the Church wrong in that period for not allowing people to receive in the hand? Does it not make sense that the Church would choose the best method by which to allow people to receive Communion? What has changed so radically that we should now receive on the hand when a century ago it wouldn’t even have been allowed for the laity?

Communion is not inferior, Communion is Communion. No one is disputing that. It is however legitimate to question whether one way of receiving it is, in whatever way, superior to another. So far your whole case seems to be based on it being allowed, why is it that you choose not to receive on the tongue? What is it that makes you favour one way over another?

Many people who receive on the tongue seem to suggest that they feel it is more reverent. They kneel before Our Lord to receive him, as a gesture of reverence to him. They open themselves to receiving him rather than taking him in hand. What is it that makes you unwilling to show respect to him in this way?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Many people who receive on the tongue seem to suggest that they feel it is more reverent. They kneel before Our Lord to receive him, as a gesture of reverence to him. They open themselves to receiving him rather than taking him in hand. What is it that makes you unwilling to make this gesture of respect to him?

Many people STAND and still receive on the tongue and there are other ways to make a gesture of respect.

 

[LilyM]

This is not about an instruction from the Church though, it is just something which they have allowed. We can discern whether we consider it wise or unwise to follow it and on that basis we decided which position we support.

The Church states that it is “prescribed by custom”, as japhy has quoted.

Church teaching has been for two thousand years or so that we should receive in the mouth. Was the Church wrong in that period for not allowing people to receive in the hand? Does it not make sense that the Church would choose the best method by which to allow people to receive Communion? What has changed so radically that we should now receive on the hand when a century ago it wouldn’t even have been allowed for the laity?

Communion is not inferior, Communion is Communion. No one is disputing that. It is however legitimate to question whether one way of receiving it is, in whatever way, superior to the other. So far your whole case seems to be based on it being allowed, why is it that you choose not to receive on the tongue? What is it that makes you favour one way over another?

Many people who receive on the tongue seem to suggest that they feel it is more reverent. They kneel before Our Lord to receive him, as a gesture of reverence to him. They open themselves to receiving him rather than taking him in hand. What is it that makes you unwilling to make this gesture of respect to him?

Firstly - the church permitted it by INSTRUCTING, via documents of indult, the GIRM etc, that it was a valid and permissible option - which it is now in most parts of the world.

It’s a matter of discipline, like priestly celibacy. The Church wasn’t wrong for permitting married Latin Rite priests for the first 1,000 years, in spite of the fact that she (with a very few exceptions) does so no longer. And neither will the ancient tradition of priestly celibacy be wrong if the Church in the future reverts to allowing married priests.

Simply put, both situations have their advantages. I’ve pointed out some of the possible perceived advantages of receiving the healing physical touch of the Lord through Communion in the Hand - nothing disrespectful about wanting that, any more than those who touched Him in life and He them were any less respectful than those who kept their distance and didn’t do so.

 

[lovesMary]

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

I don’t believe I said anything about outward reverance excluding inner holiness. I do, however, challange the magical thinking that says that adherance to a particular Liturgical form will change the World.

We change the World by hard work done in the name of Christ, in how we treat others, in ministering to the poor, the dying, the prisoners. Jesus tells us in the parable of the sheep and goats that we serve him by serving humanity.

 

[snhs]

I would also like to add that Christ celebrated the first Communion as evident in the scriptures.

Mat 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.

Mar 14:22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body.

1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

It appears our Lord did not have a problem with His body being received in the hand.

The Apostles were the first Priests, Priests to this day receive in the hand. Even if Priests are concelebrating they are still offered the ciborium from which they take a Host. I don’t think you can take this as a basis for all lay people receiving in the hand.

 

[Spiller]

Where does the CHURCH teach this distinction?

Both are acceptable in the USA and other places. And no, it does not matter that communion in hand is via indult…

 

[Spiller]

The Apostles were the first Priests, Priests to this day receive in the hand. Even if Priests are concelebrating they are still offered the ciborium from which they take a Host. I don’t think you can take this as a basis for all lay people receiving in the hand.

No they do not. Bishops and priest TAKE communion. Deacon and the rest RECEIVE communion. Big difference.

 

[Spiller]

From Memoriale Domini:In addition, this manner of communicating [on the tongue], which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which “the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way,” will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: “If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members.”
If receiving on the tongue gives, in the estimation of the Church, “more effective insurance” against profanation than receiving in the hand, I’d say that’s a measure of superiority.

A perfect example of someone digging-up a rather obscure reference in the hopes of showing that their personal preference is somehow superior to what the Church directs.

I’ll stick with actual Church instructions…

 

[wow]

The Apostles were the first Priests, Priests to this day receive in the hand. Even if Priests are concelebrating they are still offered the ciborium from which they take a Host. I don’t think you can take this as a basis for all lay people receiving in the hand.

Please let me know your thoughts on Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger words below.

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.

I will also add again, once the Pope decrees one over the other I will surely comply.

 

[japhy]

A perfect example of someone digging-up a rather obscure reference in the hopes of showing that their personal preference is somehow superior to what the Church directs.

I’ll stick with actual Church instructions…

Have you read the rest of Memoriale Domini? It’s not “a rather obscure reference”, it’s the document that permitted the indult.

 

[Lepanto]

A perfect example of someone digging-up a rather obscure reference in the hopes of showing that their personal preference is somehow superior to what the Church directs.

I’ll stick with actual Church instructions…

Obscure? Are you serious?

Memoriale Domini IS a Church instruction and it was promulgated on May 29, 1969 by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship.

In addition, Memoriale Domini has never been abrogated, so it’s STILL in force. Anyone who disregards it does so out of ignorance or disobediance.

It’s only obscure if you’ve never heard about it or read it, but now at least you know about it and so you should read it. Just Google for it, because now you can no longer claim ignorance.

It is time to stick with actual Church instructions…

 

[Dauphin]

Wrong.

It’s not your responsibility to “discern” if an instruction from the Church is “wise or unwise” – but that’s between you and God as it’s certainly not going to negatively impact others.

However when Catholics publically present their personal opinions as if they are somehow superior to what the Church actually directs then we have a big problem.

If you are in the USA you have a choice on how to receive communion. That’s fully up to you. But to suggest communion in hand is in anyway inferior is simply wrong.

Again, no one has questioned the validity of receiving on the hand. Some Catholics have the right to do that. By bringing this up, you’re straying from the topic under discussion.

The matter of concern in this thread is whether or not it is a good thing to receive in the hand and whether or not reception on the tongue is superior. It is beyond question that every Catholic is entitled to hold an opinion on this.

If you would question the right of Catholics to counsel others to receive on the tongue, and state publicly that it is superior, then I would urge you to present some document of the Church which states this. Until you do, it seems that you are simply presenting personal opinion as opposed to any authoritative order.

It is your personal belief that people should not question a practice if it is permitted by the Church. The Church has no such rule.