Hand Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter ladyml
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you have a valid argument here regarding the personal respect.

I do think as Fr. L-T noted, there is a greater chance for those who do not respect the Eucharist but do believe in it’s real presence to use it for satinic purposes. But as he noted, receiving on the tongue is not full proof either. Sounds like he has a tough pairsh to deal with and probably some of us can’t imagine what that may be like - to have satinic worshipers coming in to steal the host or derelicts just for a drink of wine if the precious blood is offered.

My own preference for receiving on the tongue are simply that I like the idea of receiving directly from the priest’s hand to my mouth with no middle person in between - that person being myself. Since I attend Indult Masses, there is no problem about that because it is the only way it is offered.

I do agree that either way can be equally respectful depending on the server and the recepient and in this country, people have the choice to receive in whichever manner suits them and so they should without criticism or compalint about how others choose.
 
40.png
deogratias:
I think you have a valid argument here regarding the personal respect.

I do think as Fr. L-T noted, there is a greater chance for those who do not respect the Eucharist but do believe in it’s real presence to use it for satinic purposes. But as he noted, receiving on the tongue is not full proof either. Sounds like he has a tough pairsh to deal with and probably some of us can’t imagine what that may be like - to have satinic worshipers coming in to steal the host or derelicts just for a drink of wine if the precious blood is offered.

My own preference for receiving on the tongue are simply that I like the idea of receiving directly from the priest’s hand to my mouth with no middle person in between - that person being myself. Since I attend Indult Masses, there is no problem about that because it is the only way it is offered.

I do agree that either way can be equally respectful depending on the server and the recepient and in this country, people have the choice to receive in whichever manner suits them and so they should without criticism or compalint about how others choose.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true. I remember receiving holy communion on the tongue perhaps 3-4 times after my first communion.

I desperately wanted to see what the host looked like. Before going up to communion (on the rail) I made sure my mouth was bone dry.

Once back in the pews I began to visually inspect Jesus until my father saw what I was doing. That was the end of that! I immediately consumed the host.

If a 7 year old can do something like that, some satanist would have no trouble – unless they were victims of poor saliva control…
 
Less chance of defiling the Eucharist should not be a major reason for receiving on the tongue. Although we make every effort to protect The Body and Blood, hand or tongue, some particles do escape into the air or ground. As for intentionally defiling The Eucharist (keeping in mind we always try to protect the Host in every way possibe) Jesus is perfectly of capable of defending himself with or without us.

I don’t think receiving on the tongue is holy or spirtual to everybody. I can get gross after a while. I was an altar boy for 5 years back in the 60’s and I can tell you that when I assisted with the plate under the throat of 300 people receiving on the tongue it is not fun or astetically pleasing or conducive to holiness, from the alter boy’s perspective.
 
That’s simply not true. I remember receiving holy communion on the tongue perhaps 3-4 times after my first communion
Click to expand...
My post was long and so what part “simply is not true” oh font of all knowledge???\

**
** do think as Fr. L-T noted, there is a greater chance for those who do not respect the Eucharist but do believe in it’s real presence to use it for satinic purposes.**
Click to expand...
But as he noted, receiving on the tongue is not full proof either **.

Did you miss his post where he said that one can put their hand up by their face and spit the host into their hand - i.e. on the tongue is not full proof. I think you did not read this because what you are telling me about your childhood performance shows this could be the case - perhaps you did not read my post carefully or his either.
My own preference for receiving on the tongue are simply that I like the idea of receiving directly from the priest’s hand to my mouth with no middle person in between - that person being myself. Since I attend Indult Masses, there is no problem about that because it is the only way it is offered.
Click to expand...
Well obviously this is true becaue it is my personal preference so you can’t be saying this is not true.
I do agree that either way can be equally respectful depending on the server and the recepient and in this country, people have the choice to receive in whichever manner suits them and so they should without criticism or compalint about how others choose
Click to expand...
.

Certainly you are not disagreeing with this.

Crusader, I would not mind if you would approach something that you differ in opinion with in some other way - saying to someone “this is not true” or “no” or “you are wrong” is just impolite.

Consider saying “are you certain about this”, or “in my opinion this is not the better way” or some other approach. But you come on like you are the world’s authority on the Cburch, daring to correct Deacons and Priests with no respect for their training or knowledge either. When asked for sources for your statements, yhou seldom give any.

Do I dislike you - yes I do - I admit it but it because of your attitude but when you are correct, I try to support that. But please, treat me and others with a little more respect and a little more appreciation that we too may “know something”. And if we don’t well then you should be charitable in trying to give us catachesis, not simply tell us we are wrong and you are right (and you are not always right).
 
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.
Click to expand...
Preference is just that - what one prefers. So long as the method for receiving is allowable and in some cases there is a choice, then one can receive in the manner they prefer.

I think you may find this brief history by Fr. Mateo will answer many of your questions.

cin.org/mateo/communion-hand.html
 
40.png
chrisg93:
I don’t think receiving on the tongue is holy or spirtual to everybody. I can get gross after a while. I was an altar boy for 5 years back in the 60’s and I can tell you that when I assisted with the plate under the throat of 300 people receiving on the tongue it is not fun or astetically pleasing or conducive to holiness, from the alter boy’s perspective.
Click to expand...
Neither was it “aesthetically pleasing” for our Lady at the foot of the cross to behold her Son. What is not aesthetically pleasing is the very essence of the divine sacrifice of the Mass. Shame on you for not maturing beyond an altar boy’s perspective. – Offended, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
albert cipriani:
What is not aesthetically pleasing is the very essence of the divine sacrifice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
But aesthetics do have a lot to do with our preferences. Many of those in this and other post receive on the tongue because it seems to them to be more reverent. One may choose to attend a Tridentine indult mass because of the feeling of reverence, even though it is the same sacrifice as in a Life Teen Mass. It is a good thing to seek out that which seems to us to be more holy are worshipful, but the reality of the Mass is not affected by our feelings.

There is no shame in expressing ones sense of what is pleasing. If you want sacrifice, attend a Life Teen Mass (for me) or a traditional Mass (for someone else,maybe).
 
40.png
chrisg93:
I don’t think receiving on the tongue is holy or spirtual to everybody. I can get gross after a while. I was an altar boy for 5 years back in the 60’s and I can tell you that when I assisted with the plate under the throat of 300 people receiving on the tongue it is not fun or astetically pleasing or conducive to holiness, from the alter boy’s perspective.
Click to expand...
I was an altarboy from 1975-1977, this was after the Ordo Missae was in place. I held the paten under many a chin. The communion rail was not ripped out till 1980 or so.

-Ted
 
40.png
pnewton:
our preferences… because it seems to them… because of the feeling of reverence… that which seems to us to be more holy… ones sense of what is pleasing.
Click to expand...
Do you hear how relativistic you sound?

You correctly state:
The Mass is not affected by our feelings"
Click to expand...
BUT WE ARE! And if we attend a liturgy that angers us because of its impious implementation or heretical sermons, why not go to a liturgy that does neither? For 20 years I fought my anger and frustration at Mass that left me barely able to manage to pray at all.

I’d have to be a spiritual masochist or fool to continue to return to such a den of inequity once I discovered the Traditionalist alternative. It’s been four years now and I’ve never looked back. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
albert cipriani:
Do you hear how relativistic you sound?
Click to expand...
No sir. My point again is that the Mass is a reality independent of our feelings. The Church allows two ways to receive. It is not for any on of us to judge each other in such a trivial matter, especially when Mother Church does not.

Tell me the difference between your anger of 20 years, while in the presence of the Real Jesus, and that of this young man you were shaming. It is still the real Jesus. Could you not recognie the sacrifice?
 
I came across this article today and found it quite interesting

Quote:

Communion by Hand — Early Patristic Evidences: Self-styled ‘traditionalists’ are almost superstitious in their notions about what does and does not constitute reverence and what is and is not sacrilegious. They even go as far as to circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that communion in the hand was not an apostolic custom. This is probably because many groups favouring communion in the hand circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that it was universal in the early church to receive by hand. In short both the ‘traditionalist’ (who argues communion on the tongue) and the liberal (who argues for communion by hand) are both wrong in trying to retroject their views as some kind of “uniform norm” in the first millennium as in neither case was this so. Since the ‘traditionalist’ generally has their heart in the right place (being muddled in the mind), they need to focus instead on where the problem really lies: poor catechizing from predominantly 1960-1990. (Though the problems with catechesis started some time before 1960.) Unless of course the ‘traditionalist’ wishes to denigrate the early Fathers, councils, and Our Lord Himself for contributing to a “lessening of reverence” for the Holy Eucharist. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1913 on the matter

For the entire article, see matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
 
All,
** If I am not mistaken, GIRM #160, p. 2 expliticly states that one cannot be refused communion when kneeling and/or on the tongue. Therefore, receiving on the tongue and kneeling is a right.**
  • Joe
 
40.png
pnewton:
No sir. My point again is that the Mass is a reality independent of our feelings.
Click to expand...
If, as you assert without argumentation, the Mass is independent of our feelings, then the Catholic who is bored stiff throughout the Mass and the Catholic who piously prays throughout it both experience the same reality?
It is not for any on of us to judge each other in such a trivial matter, especially when Mother Church does not.
Click to expand...
I judge no one. I judge which action is more conducive to the piety and prayer owed our Divine Savior. If you honestly believe this is a trivial matter, then you must think the Church is in the habit of being trivial, for she has exercised her authority in this “trivial” matter for many centuries.

The fact that the Church now allows us to receive Communion standing and in our hand instead of on our knees without daring to touch Him does not mean that she judges the new method of receiving Communion as best. She also now allows us to eat meat on Friday and fast for only 1 hour prior to Communion. Neither of these allowances mean that we ought not to fast longer than that nor abstain from meat on Friday. You seem to be confusing an allowance with a recommendation. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
plenty of posters, especially Deacon, have given proper teaching on reception of Communion. What is more disturbing is that someone would read a book about a private revelation or locution, without any effort to find out if the individual’s revelation has been approved by the local bishop or the universal church, and then use its content to make spiritual decisions. Even worse, that you would allow what is said in such a book to distress you and cause you to consider disobeying your own pastor and bishop.

If your choice of reading is causing spiritual distress you must bring it to the attention of your confessor or spiritual director and get guidance. Under no account should you be reading anything about visions, revelations, predictions etc. which are not approved by the Church. Don’t even waste your time. We have a 2000 year old tradition of valid spiritual writings from the Saints, and the Word of God in scripture and magesterial teaching to be our guide. That is where you should be spending your reading and study time.
Click to expand...
With all due respect…I am not reading a book that is causing me to “disobey my Pastor or Bishop”…Having growm up in Catholic schools I have and still do read all about the Saints, etc. This book is in no way bringing evil to me. It is actually bringing
a “Light”…If I choose to receive Our Lord on my tongue or in the hand is my choice as far as I am understanding the Catholic Church’s position on it.
I, however, have come CLOSER to Our Lord thru reading this book along with many other things that I read.
As far as getting guidance from a confessor or spiritual confessor…I don’t know where you live but our parish is so big that there is no such thing. I have actually gone to another smaller parish where the Priest IS able to talk to people. And…guess what? He borrowed the book to read.
All I am saying is that many rules that our church makes are made by men. Yes, men of God , but men, none the less. I guess we won’t know until we see Our Lord whether He really wanted us to receive in the hand. In the meantime, I am a tongue person, and I will show my reverence to Our Lord in the manner in which I was taught back in the 50’s & 60’s by the Sisters wh taught me.

Afterthought…I thought this web-site was for people to get answers to questions. It seems to me that many of us are judgemental and I wish Peace of Our Lord to all. If I cannot find kindeness here…then ???
 
40.png
ladyml:
With all due respect…I am not reading a book that is causing me to “disobey my Pastor or Bishop”…Having growm up in Catholic schools I have and still do read all about the Saints, etc. This book is in no way bringing evil to me. It is actually bringing
a “Light”…If I choose to receive Our Lord on my tongue or in the hand is my choice as far as I am understanding the Catholic Church’s position on it.
I, however, have come CLOSER to Our Lord thru reading this book along with many other things that I read.
Click to expand...
All I have to say is that when you read a book and that book makes you…
40.png
ladyml:
It had a totally profound effect on me. However, I am so very worried about what she says about receiving Holy Communion in your hand.
Click to expand...
Or in other words in makes you worried about receiving the Eucharist in a manner that the Church teaches, then there are issues here.

This book, which you claim has drawn you closer to Our Lord, has caused you to draw away from His Church.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
In other words it (the book) makes you worried about receiving the Eucharist in a manner that the Church teaches, then there are issues here. This book, which you claim has drawn you closer to Our Lord, has caused you to draw away from His Church.
Click to expand...
You have confused a permission with a doctrine. The Church teaches doctrines, she does not teach permissions. The very thought is a non sequitur. The Church does not, as you say, teach Communion in the hand. She permits it.

The poster is honest and sensitive enough to share with us her struggles over this issue. Jacob wrestled with God all night long and it was counted to his credit. Yet you claim the fact that a book has made her struggle proves that it “has caused [her] to draw away from His Church.” How judgmental, unkind, but mostly absurd is that?! – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/
 
I came to this forum looking for kindness and understanding and quite frankly I have found a lot of judgemental people. At this point I must say “good-bye”…It matters not to me what people think only My God. Peace to you all…
 
The one thing about the book that makes me suspicious of its contents is the fact that the person doing the interview is Sister Emmanuel of Medjugorje. She has a national radio program promoting the apparitions and the connection with this apparition concerns me. Maria Simma may be a pious lady, but since it is a private revelation as Catholics we are not bound by what is revealed to her.
😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top