Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified ourfaith?

[James_2_24]

Also we endanger Christ by allowing communion in the hand! It is easier for someone to stuff the Eucharist in their pocket or purse and walk off. I’ve seen it happen. Once I have alerted the Priest and he confronted the people in the parking lot. It turned out they were Episcopalians. There was nothing the Priest could do because he didn’t have the right to search them. They walked off…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

James_2:24:

Also we endanger Christ by allowing communion in the hand! It is easier for someone to stuff the Eucharist in their pocket or purse and walk off. I’ve seen it happen. Once I have alerted the Priest and he confronted the people in the parking lot. It turned out they were Episcopalians. There was nothing the Priest could do because he didn’t have the right to search them. They walked off…

Well then using this logic the laity should not be given the Eucharist at all because anytime you give the Eucharist to the laity you endanger Christ though unworthy reception or the fact that they can spit it out and do as they wish with it.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

When receiving communion by hand we receive in the left hand and then pick the consecrated host up with our right hand and self communicate right?

I wonder what the receiving communion custom is for places in the world where it is considered rude to shake or eat with your left hand? Just something to think about.

I would hope everyone who reads this knows what I’m referring to.

 

[Pug]

I know exactly what you mean, and I don’t want to think about it. Too gross!

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Pug:

I know exactly what you mean, and I don’t want to think about it. Too gross!

Imagine how horrified if you would be to find a consecrated host left in your parish restroom wouldn’t this be about the same thing? Many people with customs like these aren’t as compulsive about washing their hands as we are and even if they were many of the restrooms in places like these don’t have soap and water to wash with.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

GloriaPatri4:

Imagine how horrified if you would be to find a consecrated host left in your parish restroom wouldn’t this be about the same thing? Many people with customs like these aren’t as compulsive about washing their hands as we are and even if they were many of the restrooms in places like these don’t have soap and water to wash with.

This doesnt make sense. Where did this come from? How did the Host get in the bathroom? The problem of washing hands can happen anywhere. Its not like someone unclogs a toilet and then with the plunger in one hand and the other hand free takes Communion.

 

[jlw]

Are we supposed to go up and “get” his Body and Blood, or RECIEVE Him??

 

[Pug]

Catholic Dude:

This doesnt make sense. Where did this come from? How did the Host get in the bathroom?

It makes sense in light of earlier remarks about the eating taboos present in, say, Islamic regions of the world. There a man uses the left hand for restroom related activities and the other hand for eating, shaking hands, holding a holy book, and lots of other things. This is the background for the direction taken, I believe.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Catholic Dude:

This doesnt make sense. Where did this come from? How did the Host get in the bathroom? The problem of washing hands can happen anywhere. Its not like someone unclogs a toilet and then with the plunger in one hand and the other hand free takes Communion.

I’m sorry I lost you. Please read post #103.

There are some cultures in our world that do not use toilet paper. They believe using their left hand and water (no soap) is better than using toilet paper and then their are some places that cannot afford toilet paper or their septic systems can’t handle toilet paper. Some of these cultures are not real big on washing their hands either and even if they are most public restrooms which sometimes are only a holes in the ground (squatter toilets) do not have soap and water to wash with. Sorry to be so graphic.

My point is or my question is, in cultures where this is the custom do they receive on the tongue or in their left hand?

 

[GloriaPatri4]

The Church Speaks

The first paragraph in the above quotation is strikingly similar to
the text of Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of
Administering Holy Communion, published by the Congregation for
Divine Worship on May 29, 1969, and signed by the Holy Father Paul
VI, where it states:

 "When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some
 individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the
 consecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in their
 territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the
 Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to
 introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based
 on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely
 affect discipline.  It 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."
 
 Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops.  Up to
 March 12 the following responses had been received:

 1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which,
 besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy
 Communion in the hand would be permitted?

      Yes: 567
      No:  1,233
      Yes, with reservations: 315
      Invalid votes: 20

 2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in
 small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?

      Yes: 751
      No:  1,215
      Invalid votes: 70

 3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned
 catechetical preparation, would accept; this new rite willingly?

      Yes: 835
      No:  1,185
      Invalid votes: 128

** From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the
 greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline
 should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed,
 this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual
 appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful**.

 After he had considered the observations and the counsel of
 those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the
 Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the
 importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged
 that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to
 the faithful should not be changed.

 The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and
 people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed,
 according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic
 episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred
 liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the
 Church."

The “Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin
Church should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness of
introducing this rite” in a way remarkably similar to the way that
David consulted “with everyone of his leaders”. The opinions were
obtained and the following was decreed: “The Apostolic See therefore
strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this
law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the
majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present
rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common
good of the Church.” This statement is so clear and direct that no
equivocation is possible. Just as in the response of the commanders
summoned by David that “the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the
idea was pleasing to all the people” so also it happened in Memoriale
Domini that “after he had considered the observations and the counsel
of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” the
Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance
of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long
received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should
not be changed.”

**The Loophole

So what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. The
answer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini,
where it states**:

Read article in its entirety
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

 

[mlchance]

You, as a Non Roman Catholic should not be castigating a Roman Catholic in such matters. It would be appropriate for you to tell us the****written directives of the Byzentine Church if you so desired. You do not speak for the Roman Catholic Church.

Nor do you, which makes statements like the following, at best, extremely presumptuous:

Exporter:

The Practice of Communion in the Hand has NOT strengthened the faith of anyone.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Exporter]

mlchance,

Do you know what the original question was? It requires a “Yes” or “No” answer. You, mlchance, say that I am presumptuous if I answer - is sheer nonsence.

Please tell me how taking the Eucharist in the hand has made the Church more Holy , has strengthened the Faith of the Laity.

I think those who want to recieve in the hand will next want to do away with the Sign of the Cross. Then what’s next? Women Priests?

 

[rcn]

Exporter:

Please tell me how taking the Eucharist in the hand has made the Church more Holy , has strengthened the Faith of the Laity.

The Church allows it. Why must anyone feel the need to defend it to you?

I think those who want to recieve in the hand will next want to do away with the Sign of the Cross. Then what’s next? Women Priests?

Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion.

 

[mlchance]

Exporter:

Do you know what the original question was? It requires a “Yes” or “No” answer. You, mlchance, say that I am presumptuous if I answer - is sheer nonsence.

Your presumption is the claim that “the Practice of Communion in the Hand has NOT strengthened the faith of anyone.”

Exporter:

Please tell me how taking the Eucharist in the hand has made the Church more Holy , has strengthened the Faith of the Laity.

I’ll get on that right after you post the definitive evidence you have that not a single one of the one billion Catholics alive today, nor a single one of the billions of Catholics who have passed on, have never had their faith strengthened by receiving Communion in the hand.

Exporter:

I think those who want to recieve in the hand will next want to do away with the Sign of the Cross. Then what’s next? Women Priests?

The sheer illogic of your position staggers the imagination.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[HagiaSophia]

mlchance,

Do you know what the original question was? It requires a “Yes” or “No” answer. You, mlchance, say that I am presumptuous if I answer - is sheer nonsence.

Please tell me how taking the Eucharist in the hand has made the Church more Holy , has strengthened the Faith of the Laity.

I think those who want to recieve in the hand will next want to do away with the Sign of the Cross. Then what’s next? Women Priests?

Could you please clarify for me the connections you see drawing you to the conclusion that receiving in the hand leads to suppressing the sign of the cross which then leads to women’s ordination…I’m can’t quite follow your line of reasoning.

 

[Windmill]

Interesting how Protestant Reformers purposely denied the laity communion on the tongue. Admittedly, they did this to eradicate “Romish” beliefs like Transubstantiation.

 

[beverly30]

HagiaSophia:

Could you please clarify for me the connections you see drawing you to the conclusion that receiving in the hand leads to suppressing the sign of the cross which then leads to women’s ordination…I’m can’t quite follow your line of reasoning.

I’m obviously not exporter, but to me what he’s saying is kind of clear. He’s saying where do you draw the line. You change a little thing here, change a little thing there. Pretty soon it seems normal to change little things, so then they start with the bigger things. THINGS should stay the way they were (before Vatican II)

 

[beverly30]

I’ll get on that right after you post the definitive evidence you have that not a single one of the one billion Catholics alive today, nor a single one of the billions of Catholics who have passed on, have never had their faith strengthened by receiving Communion in the hand.

The sheer illogic of your position staggers the imagination.

– Mark L. Chance.

That is not a good way to try to discuss something- by asking someone to prove the impossible. The real question is- why do we feel by changing the original way of receiving communion we would strengthen our faith? All I see is that it makes it seem O.k. to change things that had no need of change.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

beverly30:

That is not a good way to try to discuss something- by asking someone to prove the impossible. The real question is- why do we feel by changing the original way of receiving communion we would strengthen our faith? All I see is that it makes it seem O.k. to change things that had no need of change.

If this is the real question then I think it is flawed.

It is the reception of the Eucharist that strengthens our faith, it is not how it is done. As there are multiple methods even if we only allow reception on the Tongue.

For example, there is by intinction as we do in the Byzantine Church. Also priests and deacons receive in the Hand.

Now I have another question. I know that most who want reception limited to on the Tongue are in favor of recepton of the Precious Blood. But in essence you are recieving the Precious Blood in the hand as you take the Chalice in Hand and recieve. Would you be for limited reception of the Precious Blood and have the only hands on it be the person giving it to you?

 

[beverly30]

This is definately only my opinion, but with His Blood- I see it as your touching glass on the outside. Since the outside of the glass doesn’t touch His Blood- I don’t believe that to be inappropriate.

Once again, my biggest concern is the change that has taken place. So many changes. I see all of these changes as causing Catholics who were once united to diversify. That to me is not good. This wasn’t a problem before Vatican II. When you start changing wordings, and actions (which is what happened with Vatican II) your going to cause diversity, and not unity in the Church. Prior to 1965 there weren’t all of these different groups of Catholic. When you said you were Catholic, people knew exactly which Catholic you were, the only one that existed.