Hand Communion

[Prometheum_x]

I have read the opinions of some that suggest that the laity should not receive in the hand because only the priests and bishops have “consecrated hands” I am curious to know what the reasoning behind this is. If, as they say, I as a lay person ought not to receive in the hand because my hands are unconsecrated, it would seem that then my mouth and lips are in fact consecrated, since it is entirely proper to receive with those organs. Any thoughts?

 

[tulipelb]

Prometheum_x:

I have read the opinions of some that suggest that the laity should not receive in the hand because only the priests and bishops have “consecrated hands” I am curious to know what the reasoning behind this is. If, as they say, I as a lay person ought not to receive in the hand because my hands are unconsecrated, it would seem that then my mouth and lips are in fact consecrated, since it is entirely proper to receive with those organs. Any thoughts?

it’s not a matter that your mouth and tongue are consacred and your hands are not! it’s a proper and descent way to receive comunion! we are dealing with the BLOOD and BODY OF GOD
can you see the difference , we are not dealing with a simple bread, we have to be respectful when taking the Host ! The presence Of God By himself …
JG

 

[pnewton]

tulipelb:

can you see the difference , we are not dealing with a simple bread, we have to be respectful when taking the Host ! The presence Of God By himself …
JG

No one here is denying the real presence. Christ is as really present regardless of how one receives. We must always receive with the proper reverance respecting the body of Christ when we receive in the hand…

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

How did we come to stand for communion when kneeling was the Roman custom for centuries? It was imposed by force of law, no other reason. This venerable custom was swept away for what reason? Has standing and receiving the Sacred Host in the hand led to a greater love for the Holy Eucharist? Not from where I am standing. Many practices which are not wrong in themselves have been suppressed by the Church because they invariably lead to abuses or dimunition of faith. On a practical point, has anyone ever tried to kneel for communion while in one of these ‘bus-queues’ (lines to you Americans)? It is practically impossible, unless you are young and nimble. This practice is the worst form of obligated uniformity. It must be stopped.

 

[bapcathluth]

I was baptized Catholic, raised Lutheran, and attended my Dad’s Catholic church very often. In the Lutheran church we always kneeled and received on the tongue. Sometimes we had common cup wine and sometimes individual cup wine. I was always amazed by how much faster the Catholic communion went. I figured that was why people just stood and got the host in the hand. Usually Catholic churches had many more members. I do agree that kneeling and receiving the host on the tongue seems more awe-inspiring.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Jim ov Cov:

How did we come to stand for communion when kneeling was the Roman custom for centuries? It was imposed by force of law, no other reason. This venerable custom was swept away for what reason? Has standing and receiving the Sacred Host in the hand led to a greater love for the Holy Eucharist? Not from where I am standing. Many practices which are not wrong in themselves have been suppressed by the Church because they invariably lead to abuses or dimunition of faith. On a practical point, has anyone ever tried to kneel for communion while in one of these ‘bus-queues’ (lines to you Americans)? It is practically impossible, unless you are young and nimble. This practice is the worst form of obligated uniformity. It must be stopped.

The answer to your question is simple, and not at all what you assert. Latin Catholics can thank/blame the Melkite Patriarch for this practice. In the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches (at least, those of Byzantine pursuasion) standing is the norm for communion and always has been. In fact, there is a directive issued by an early Ecumenical council that prohibits kneeling on Sundays!

The practice of standing to receive communion comes back to the West (it was the norm in the West, too) from the East. In the Eastern tradition kneeling is not a sign of respect or worship but, rather, of penitence. For the Eastern Catholic the model of the publican at prayer (standing with head bowed) is what we follow (and the most common phrase in our Liturgy is “Lord, have mercy!”).

Deacon Ed

 

[JNB]

Deacon Ed:

The answer to your question is simple, and not at all what you assert. Latin Catholics can thank/blame the Melkite Patriarch for this practice. In the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches (at least, those of Byzantine pursuasion) standing is the norm for communion and always has been. In fact, there is a directive issued by an early Ecumenical council that prohibits kneeling on Sundays!

The practice of standing to receive communion comes back to the West (it was the norm in the West, too) from the East. In the Eastern tradition kneeling is not a sign of respect or worship but, rather, of penitence. For the Eastern Catholic the model of the publican at prayer (standing with head bowed) is what we follow (and the most common phrase in our Liturgy is “Lord, have mercy!”).

Deacon Ed

 Standing for communion was not mandated by either Vatican II or the Novus Ordo missal itself, and in fact, into the 80s, kneeling at the rail was the norm for communion in much of Europe. Standing for communion was starting to be practiced in the Latin Rite as an experiment even before Vatican II started, I even read online from the Atlanta Arcdiocean newspaper on a parish in 63 that turned the altar around and took downm the rails, the "justification" for standing for communion is that the priest stands when he receives communion.

My take, standing for communion along with communion on the hand were mistakes, and again, there are no documents from either Vatican II nor in the years following Vatican II that either suggested, much less mandated such practices, but of course, sadly, clergy took liscence to mandate “The Spirit of Vatican II”, and one of those things were to one day step in fromt of the altar rail and say that this is how communion will be recieved, and a blindly obidient laity followed suit.

 

[Michael_Welter]

I’m certainly no an expert on how to receive communion. I see very few Catholics receive communion in a manner fit with receiving the King of kings. I bow before receiving. I receive in the hand, and before consuming the host, I look at it say “I love you”. This is my King! He allows me to eat His flesh and drink His blood. What could be greater than that?

I understand the argument that the Apostles were the first Bishops, and, therefore, had consecrated hands. But I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that the laity were not allowed to receive communion in the hand. In fact, when Jesus gave His flesh to the Apostles, in their hands, He instructed to “do this in remembrance of me.”

So I’m looking to all of my brothers and sisters online here to educate me on why receiving on the tongue should be preferred.

 

[Crusader]

Michael Welter:

I’m certainly no an expert on how to receive communion. I see very few Catholics receive communion in a manner fit with receiving the King of kings. I bow before receiving. I receive in the hand, and before consuming the host, I look at it say “I love you”. This is my King! He allows me to eat His flesh and drink His blood. What could be greater than that?

I understand the argument that the Apostles were the first Bishops, and, therefore, had consecrated hands. But I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that the laity were not allowed to receive communion in the hand. In fact, when Jesus gave His flesh to the Apostles, in their hands, He instructed to “do this in remembrance of me.”

So I’m looking to all of my brothers and sisters online here to educate me on why receiving on the tongue should be preferred.

There is no reason. It’s fully up to the comunicant.

Some will mention that communion in hand is via an indult in the USA and that receiving on the tongue is the normative way of receiving. The response to that is “so?” The Church allows both ways – one is not better than the other, despite the agonized positions of a few.

The key is to show true humility and respect when receiving communion…

 

[oat_soda]

So I’m looking to all of my brothers and sisters online here to educate me on why receiving on the tongue should be preferred.

nobody is saying that recieving communion in the hand in of itself is wrong, but that people who are poorly catechetized can be mislead. in our culture, eating with our hands is normally the way we eat food. normally, what we eat becomes part of us. but when we recieve the eucharist, we become more like the food. because of this, wouldn’t it seem fitting to recieve this heavenly food in a different manner to convey the respect needed when one recieves the eucharist? the way we worship is the way we believe. who could honestly say that kneeling and recieving the eucharist on the tounge is just as outwardly reverent as recieving the eucharist in the hand?

all of mother teresa’s sisters recieve holy communion on the tongue. when asked what worried mother teresa most of all in this world, answered: “communion in the hand.”

has this practice helped the strengthen our belief in the real presence? why does ALL of eastern christianity only recieve the eucharist on the tounge?

“Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
“Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body… “When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” this text is pretty weak to justify communion in the hand considering how wacky it is.

 

[otm]

JNB:

Further instruction from the Vatican in 3 letters to the Bishops have stated clearly, in the link I posted that Catholics that do kneel for communion are not to be imposed upon nor are they to be considerd disobidient.

The letters are very nice. However, the law is expressed in the GIRM, not the letters. It says that one who refuses to follow the law of standing is to be counseled.

It is absolute illogic to say that one who kneels is not disobedient; a) it is the law to stand, and )b there would be no reason to counsel if by kneeling they were being obedient.

And it always amazes me that the liberals, who profess to being pious in their violations of the law are castigated, while the conservatives, who profess to being pious in their violations of the law are to be seen as somehow more in tune with true worship.

They both violate the law based upon their own personal opinions.

But then, that’s just my opinion… :dancing:

 

[JNB]

otm:

The letters are very nice. However, the law is expressed in the GIRM, not the letters. It says that one who refuses to follow the law of standing is to be counseled.

It is absolute illogic to say that one who kneels is not disobedient; a) it is the law to stand, and )b there would be no reason to counsel if by kneeling they were being obedient.

And it always amazes me that the liberals, who profess to being pious in their violations of the law are castigated, while the conservatives, who profess to being pious in their violations of the law are to be seen as somehow more in tune with true worship.

They both violate the law based upon their own personal opinions.

But then, that’s just my opinion… :dancing:

 The Vatican and the CDW trumps the GIRM. Guidelines and norms as I said to you before otm does not equal liturgical law.  The letters are not simpily "nice", they come from the Vatican OTM, you and your ilk try to interpert otherwise, thankfully the Vatican has protected the laitys right to kneel.

In any event, the same applies to conregations that have no kneelers and stand for the Canon of the mass, if a bishop dispenses them, then they do not have to kneel during the mass, nor can a Bishop force a conregation to stand from the Angus Dei and when they return from their pews.

 

[Crusader]

oat soda:

nobody is saying that recieving communion in the hand in of itself is wrong, but that people who are poorly catechetized can be mislead. in our culture, eating with our hands is normally the way we eat food. normally, what we eat becomes part of us. but when we recieve the eucharist, we become more like the food. because of this, wouldn’t it seem fitting to recieve this heavenly food in a different manner to convey the respect needed when one recieves the eucharist? the way we worship is the way we believe. who could honestly say that kneeling and recieving the eucharist on the tounge is just as outwardly reverent as recieving the eucharist in the hand?

all of mother teresa’s sisters recieve holy communion on the tongue. when asked what worried mother teresa most of all in this world, answered: “communion in the hand.”

has this practice helped the strengthen our belief in the real presence? why does ALL of eastern christianity only recieve the eucharist on the tounge?

“Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
“Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body… “When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” this text is pretty weak to justify communion in the hand considering how wacky it is.

I follow the Church not Mother Teresa’s sisters. Their opinion means absolutely nothing to me. The Church’s means a great deal to me as the Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on Earth.

During the Divine Liturgy the priestly celebrant chants “TAKE, eat, this is my Body…”

Even though we receive Holy Communion via a spoon, that sure sounds like communion on the hand…

 

[Crusader]

otm:

The letters are very nice. However, the law is expressed in the GIRM, not the letters. It says that one who refuses to follow the law of standing is to be counseled.

It is absolute illogic to say that one who kneels is not disobedient; a) it is the law to stand, and )b there would be no reason to counsel if by kneeling they were being obedient.

And it always amazes me that the liberals, who profess to being pious in their violations of the law are castigated, while the conservatives, who profess to being pious in their violations of the law are to be seen as somehow more in tune with true worship.

They both violate the law based upon their own personal opinions.

But then, that’s just my opinion… :dancing:

Bingo! The truly sad part is the ultra-“conservatives” give a great deal of ammo to the ultra-“liberals.”

Spend any time at all around bitter and just plain nasty ultra-“conservatives” and even an extreme alternative can begin to look appealing.

 

[oat_soda]

I follow the Church not Mother Teresa’s sisters. Their opinion means absolutely nothing to me. The Church’s means a great deal to me as the Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on Earth.

i wouldn’t discount what mother teresa believes too readily. she was much closer to God then i am. besides, pope paul vi’s concession was the document Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), which recognized that communion on the tongue was “more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.” the holy father also warned that communion in the hand “carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

Our present Holy Father, John Paul II, some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, no matter where they came from, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d’Estaing, came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth (see Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997, p. 24). Likewise, a canon lawyer present at the 1981 papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue. Currently, John Paul II gives Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. Concelebrating priests are told to do the same.

John Paul II:
Our present Holy Father, John Paul II, some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, no matter where they came from, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d’Estaing, came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth (see Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997, p. 24). Likewise, a canon lawyer present at the 1981 papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue. Currently, John Paul II gives Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. Concelebrating priests are told to do the same. tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm

During the Divine Liturgy the priestly celebrant chants “TAKE, eat, this is my Body…”

are you sure the greek or aramaic meaning of “take” rules out recieving communion on the tounge?

Even though we receive Holy Communion via a spoon, that sure sounds like communion on the hand…

i’m not following how this is similar to communion in the hand, you still don’t touch it. melkites, coptics, ethiopians, maronites, armenians, do not use spoons. thier priests place the eucharist on your tounge.

 

[kk1727]

The best explanation I’ve ever heard for receiving communion only on the tongue is presented by a Miles Jesu tract. I know that all here are believing Catholics therefore the doctrine of transubstantiation and concomittance should give you pause about receiving on the hand. We Catholics believe that every particle (regardless of size) is the whole Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - under the species of bread. Every particle or flake simply is our Lord. Who then can be sure that they do not accidentally fail to preserve every flake or particle of the Eucharist when they receive communion in the hand?

The Miles Jesu tract compares our proper disposition to the Eucharist to that of a jewelry engraver, who jealously guards every flake of gold dust because it is precious to him. Should we not also be as conscious of our Lord. This was the previous reason that the Priest in the old liturgical rite kept his thumb and index finger together until the ablutions.

Now this isn’t to say that the Eucharist cannot be handled properly as to avoid such indecency. However, due to the careless attitude of some it seems almost conclusive to me that our Lord suffers many indignities. This is a good reason for forbidding the practice. Not because it is inherently wrong, but rather in order to avoid abuses at the hands of the careless.

 

[otm]

JNB:

The Vatican and the CDW trumps the GIRM. Guidelines and norms as I said to you before otm does not equal liturgical law. The letters are not simpily “nice”, they come from the Vatican OTM, you and your ilk try to interpert otherwise, thankfully the Vatican has protected the laitys right to kneel.

In any event, the same applies to conregations that have no kneelers and stand for the Canon of the mass, if a bishop dispenses them, then they do not have to kneel during the mass, nor can a Bishop force a conregation to stand from the Angus Dei and when they return from their pews.

Ilk. Hmmn.

Last I looked, The General Instructions of the Roman Missal were not guidelines. And they did come from the Vatican; I don’t recall any letter trumping them. Letters may be instructional as to how the law is interpreted, but they are not the law.

And as to a bishop dispensing the congregation from kneeling, the GIRM already covers that.

Bishops forcing? Of course they cannot force a congregation to obey the law, whether it is a conservative congregation or a liberal one.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

I was at two Masses at the Vatican Last year and it was physically impossible to receive on the tongue or kneeling. I received at both Masses and really had no concern over posture. I was thrilled and eternally greatful that I could recieve at the Vatican.

 

[deogratias]

The best explanation I’ve ever heard for receiving communion only on the tongue is presented by a Miles Jesu tract

There is a Miles Jesus Center here in Phoenix where I attended Divine Liturgy twice. It was the Ukranian Rite and of course we received from the spoon.

Miles Jesu is having their annual International Path to Rome here in Phoenix this year (actually in Mesa) and my program shows that Litrugy will be celebrated on Saturday at noon by Cardinal Hoyos and on Sunday Mass will be celebrated by Cardinal Lopez Trujillo. So I am wondering if Cardinal Hoyos will be saying the Divine Liturgy and if Sunday Mass will be Tridentine or Novos Ordo.

 

[pnewton]

The line of reasoning has been mentioned several times that because of the Real Presence, we should receive on the tongue. It is easier to be disrespectful when receiving in the hand.

But if one is disrespectful or does not believe in the Real Presence, then why would one care how he receives. It is for the respectful communicant fully aware of the sacrament he is receiving to consider this an issue. For such a person, reception will be with the proper attitude when one receives in the hand or on the tongue. The attitude of the communicant is what is important, not the manner of reception.