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

[Exporter]

**Writter **said, “:I’ll be honest here… As a new Catholic, I am not all that comfortable with sticking the ol’ tongue out. Having anyone place something on my tongue feels strange and awkward. If accepting it in our hands reverently is wrong, why would our tongues be any better?”

---

As a new Catholic do you know that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist?

As a new Catholic do you know Jesus Christ said ":Eat of my Body and Drink of my Blood?

It is a Supreme sacrifice that Jesus is making to come here at Mass to put His Spirit into you. You should be respectful - It is Jesus after all.

I have been a Roman Catholic for almost 50 years and never have I , nor will I ever stick out my Grubby Hand to recieve Jesus. Ity was good for 1900 years, what has changed - YOU. Are you just to sensative to obey Catholic tradition?

 

[pnewton]

tuopaolo:

So you would listen to a “lay-liturgist” – something which is a liberal creation – over someone whom you yourself say is a very wise priest? .

Excellent point. This is why I am slow to listen to the myriad of conflicting opinions on this subject and listen to the one wise priest I know, my priest. He distributes both ways and demands respect during Mass.

Just like there can be no proper authoritative interpretaion of Sacred Scripture without Sacred Tradition, without authority, there can be no effective implementation of disciplines.

It has been said in defense of tradition to image a set of laws without the courts to interpret. I can not imagine laws with out the police on the street to enforce it.

 

[Writer]

**Writter **said, “:I’ll be honest here… As a new Catholic, I am not all that comfortable with sticking the ol’ tongue out. Having anyone place something on my tongue feels strange and awkward. If accepting it in our hands reverently is wrong, why would our tongues be any better?”

---

As a new Catholic do you know that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist?

As a new Catholic do you know Jesus Christ said ":Eat of my Body and Drink of my Blood?

It is a Supreme sacrifice that Jesus is making to come here at Mass to put His Spirit into you. You should be respectful - It is Jesus after all.

I have been a Roman Catholic for almost 50 years and never have I , nor will I ever stick out my Grubby Hand to recieve Jesus. Ity was good for 1900 years, what has changed - YOU. Are you just to sensative to obey Catholic tradition?

Tradition I certainly can respect, but those who taught me (and are teaching me) permit both of these methods. By the time I learned about this little controversy, I have already received it by my hand as I was taught in RCIA. Be that as it may, however, what really intrigues me is what makes the tongue cleaner than the hands?? You did not spend one word to address that question, although I thought I explained my point pretty well. Thinking of it in spiritual terms, what organ spreads more wickedness and division among the community through gossip or slander or abuse? What makes you think your tongue is any better-prepared to accept the host? In my mind, no part of me is worthy to accept it, but the practical nature dictates that I find a way. Furthermore, how did the apostles accept it in the upper room? Were they all sticking there tongues out? I guess I want to hear more of a debate as opposed to someone laying down the law. I am open to changing, but only if I understand why. Thanks!

 

[pnewton]

Writer:

Tradition I certainly can respect, but those who taught me (and are teaching me) permit both of these methods… Thinking of it in spiritual terms, what organ spreads more wickedness and division among the community through gossip or slander or abuse? !

James, chapter two or thereabouts. The tongue is a world of iniquity, although those who receive in their hands still have to put it in the mouth.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the idea that reception on the tongue is 1900 years old. While it is a very old tradition, you won’t find it in the Didache or older church documents.

 

[2heartsaz1]

**Its neither strengthened nor weakened **the belief, so the correct answer is “no”.

But the communion-in-the-hand procedure is here to stay, as communion-on-the-tongue is a bit awkward for many of the EM’s to handle easily.

A 5’1" EM trying to give communion on the tongue to a 6’5" communicant is just plain awkward.

2cents worth: IF an EM is shorter than average, there should be a step atop which he should stand OR the communicant should kneel so that Our Eucharistic Lord will not fall to the floor.

D in AZ

Just what I do whenever that situation occurs. Kneel.

 

[mlchance]

tuopaolo:

The authenticity of that quotation is in doubt and controversial in some quarters.

One can say the same thing about the Bible.

The only thing uncertain about the quote is the authorship. It may not have been Cyril of Jerusalem but instead his brother John.

Receiving Communion in the hand was a practice of the ancient Church. This is a certain fact.

It is also a certain fact that not a single person here has made anything approaching a coherent argument as to why receiving Communion in the hand ought to be disallowed. Every argument revolves around mere opinion and/or wild speculation about abuses and EBay.

Since no practice can prevent people from abusing the Host, I guess we ought to get rid of the practice entirely. Same thing with the Sacrament of Reconciliation. After all, some people surely make insincere confessions. And let’s get rid of the Sacrament of Matrimony as well, for similar reasons. And how parents don’t honor the promises they make when their children are baptized? Time to get rid of the Sacrament of Baptism. Et cetera.

Or, better yet, people can stop whining and actually work to properly catechize Catholics. We can start with this:
“Therefore, when you come to receive, do not approach with hands extended and fingers open wide. Rather make your left hand a throne for your right as it is about to receive the King, and receive the Body of Christ in the fold of your hand, responding, ‘Amen.’ Take care that you lose not even one piece of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones.”

From Mystagogk Catechesis, widely attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a Doctor of the Church (A.D. 315-386).
– Mark L. Chance.

 

[tuopaolo]

pnewton:

Excellent point. This is why I am slow to listen to the myriad of conflicting opinions on this subject and listen to the one wise priest I know, my priest. He distributes both ways and demands respect during Mass.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs? Priests are required by law to distribute both ways. This doesn’t say anything about what this priest’s opinion is as to what should be done about the issue being discussed in this thread.

 

[tuopaolo]

mlchance:

Receiving Communion in the hand was a practice of the ancient Church. This is a certain fact.

Saying it is a fact does not make it so.

Every argument revolves around mere opinion and/or wild speculation about abuses and EBay.

It’s not “wild speculation.” Sacriliges have happened. That is certain fact. Sacrileges would have happened less had there been no Communion in the hand. That is a certain fact. Some people don’t care about these facts and instead care more about some thing else. That is my opinion.

Since no practice can prevent people from abusing the Host, I guess we ought to get rid of the practice entirely.

This is a non-sequitur if I ever saw one. Restricting Communion to being received on the tongue won’t eliminate sacrilege but it is certainly likely to reduce it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

mlchance:

Receiving Communion in the hand was a practice of the ancient Church. This is a certain fact.

Saying it is a fact does not make it so.

So you deny this fact?

Since no practice can prevent people from abusing the Host, I guess we ought to get rid of the practice entirely.

This is a non-sequitur if I ever saw one. Restricting Communion to being received on the tongue won’t eliminate sacrilege but it is certainly likely to reduce it.

Actually if you look up the Non Sequitur logical fallacies your assertion fits just as well.

I would say that restricting communion to reception on the tongue will reduce the appearance of sacrilege. As one can make sure a person who recieves in the hand places it in their mouth where there is no assurance with reception on the tongue.

As I have stated else where, in my past there is some wicca/neo-pagan/magick stuff. I have read and heard from others who did this sort of thing. They stated that they would recieve on the tongue only to spit it out later because when they recieved on the tongue they felt that no one paid any attention to them because they appeared to be more pious then the average person.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

So you deny this fact?

I question it. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Communion on the tongue doesn’t go back to apostolic times.

I would say that restricting communion to reception on the tongue will reduce the appearance of sacrilege. As one can make sure a person who recieves in the hand places it in their mouth where there is no assurance with reception on the tongue.

I can’t make head or tails out of what you wrote here. Are you saying that restricting it will reduce the appearance of sacrilege but not actually reduce sacrilege? Are you saying that it will increase sacrilege? Are you saying that sacrilege will remain exactly constant?

Your logic in the second sentence is baffling. The person who receives on the hand and places the Host in his mouth would have done so by means of placing the Host on his tongue which is where it would more or less be anyway in the case of someone who has received on the tongue. So to argue that the former is better security with respect to sacrilege than the former is preposterous.

Furthermore, there is no way you could get every minister of Holy Communion to make sure the Host, received in the hand, is then placed in the mouth. That doesn’t happen today. In fact during the Pope’s funeral I saw a priest leaning and struggling to see if a person who had already received Communion in his hand would place the Host in his mouth. It turned out that he ended up doing so, but his back was turned already to the priest and with the crowds no one may have been able to stop him had he intended to not consume the Host. Also, IIRC, in this very thread someone testified to a situation where a priest chased someone out to a parking lot of the Church who had not consumed the Host but the priest was unable to do anything at that point. You are living in fantasy land if you think that it would be feasible to get all or almost all ministers of Holy Communion to even attempt to enforce consumption of the Host. What is feasible is to get almost all ministers of Holy Communion to distribute Communion only on the tongue.

As I have stated else where, in my past there is some wicca/neo-pagan/magick stuff. I have read and heard from others who did this sort of thing. They stated that they would recieve on the tongue only to spit it out later because when they recieved on the tongue they felt that no one paid any attention to them because they appeared to be more pious then the average person.

They can do the same thing receiving Communion in the hand. Receiving Communion in the hand doesn’t stop them from spitting it out later either. The fact is that sacrilege will be reduced. Perhaps it won’t be reduced by a great magnitude, but isn’t Our Lord worth it to reduce it even by a little? For even one offense of sacrilege is a terrible crime. This isn’t economics. This is about God.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

ByzCath:

So you deny this fact?

I question it. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Communion on the tongue doesn’t go back to apostolic times.

So you question what the Chruch has said.

There is no evidence to support what you say here. I do believe there is evidence to support communion in hand as an ancient tradition of the Church but I am not going to hunt for it as I believe what the Church states on this matter.

I would say that restricting communion to reception on the tongue will reduce the appearance of sacrilege. As one can make sure a person who recieves in the hand places it in their mouth where there is no assurance with reception on the tongue.

I can’t make head or tails out of what you wrote here. Are you saying that restricting it will reduce the appearance of sacrilege but not actually reduce sacrilege? Are you saying that it will increase sacrilege? Are you saying that sacrilege will remain exactly constant?

And logically speaking what I wrote is correct.

We can not, logically, say that a change will reduce sacrilege. It will only reduce our perception of what sacrilege could occur.

No one can say for a fact that more, less, or the same amount of sacrilege will occur with a change of how communion is given. No one can say for a fact how much sacrilege current occurs.

Your logic in the second sentence is baffling. The person who receives on the hand and places the Host in his mouth would have done so by means of placing the Host on his tongue which is where it would more or less be anyway in the case of someone who has received on the tongue. So to argue that the former is better security with respect to sacrilege than the former is preposterous.

No more preposterous then what you are saying.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

So you question what the Chruch has said.

No I do not. The Church has not said that Communion on the tongue does not go back to the apostles.

No one can say for a fact that more, less, or the same amount of sacrilege will occur with a change of how communion is given. No one can say for a fact how much sacrilege current occurs.

Your last sentence is irrelevant as this is not about how much sacrilege currently occurs but about whether it would increase or decrease. Even if you couldn’t say for “a fact” one could say that probably it would decrease. This is not a math problem or a philosophical problem. This is about God.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

ByzCath:

So you question what the Chruch has said.

No I do not. The Church has not said that Communion on the tongue does not go back to the apostles.

Yes you do.

The Catholic Encylopedia has this to say…

And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.

This is found in Letter 93, St. Basil of Caesarea, concerning Communion

Also check out the Synod of Trullo.

St Cyril of Jerusalem says, “When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”

Here is an article where these and other facts are stated.
The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand

Now it took me all of 5 minutes to find this proof of communion in the hand in the early Church.

Can you prove otherwise?

No one can say for a fact that more, less, or the same amount of sacrilege will occur with a change of how communion is given. No one can say for a fact how much sacrilege current occurs.

Your last sentence is irrelevant as this is not about how much sacrilege currently occurs but about whether it would increase or decrease. Even if you couldn’t say for “a fact” one could say that probably it would decrease. This is not a math problem or a philosophical problem. This is about God.

And your last two sentences make no sense as your whole argument is that communion in the hand creates more sacrilege (unprovable).

If its about God then I stand by the Church and the Magisterium as they are the authority in such matters.

 

[pnewton]

tuopaolo:

What does this have to do with the price of eggs? Priests are required by law to distribute both ways. This doesn’t say anything about what this priest’s opinion is as to what should be done about the issue being discussed in this thread.

The priest’s opinion is that this is an irrelevant issue. I am sorry if this was not clear. Let me clarity the point since you missed it. You said Fr. Groeshel was more authoritative as a priest than a lay liturgist based on the fact he was a priest, as if a priest’s opinion in the matter are of more value that a lay person. May I point out that there is more than one priest in this country with more than one opinion on this topic. Therefore, one can not look at one as more authoritative based on his television exposure. If one looks for priestly authority, then he must look to the priest whose authority he is under, being under the bishop, who is under the pope.

This is why I am not open to “conversion” from crusaders for this practice or that (including the topic of the thread) and why attempts to convert others to one’s personal preference or to belittle the practice of others is meddling beyond the bounds of Christian charity. (in my reasoning)

 

[mlchance]

tuopaolo:

I question it. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Communion on the tongue doesn’t go back to apostolic times.

That’s an argument from silence, and also irrelevant.

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand is an ancient practice, and has been amply demonstrated in this and other threads. It did exist in the early Church, perhaps side-by-side with receiving Communion on the tongue.

Receiving Communion in the hand is not a liturgical novelty.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

Yes you do.

Byz could you please provide a teaching from the magisterium that Communion on the tongue does not go back to the apostles? If you can’t then stop making these preposterous statements.

And your last two sentences make no sense as your whole argument is that communion in the hand creates more sacrilege (unprovable).

Byz when making pastoral decisions you don’t just consider what can be PROVED. Do you really think that it is likely that Communion on the tongue will not decrease sacrilege?

If its about God then I stand by the Church and the Magisterium as they are the authority in such matters.

Apparently you don’t since you say that if the magisterium were to restrict Communion to being received on the tongue to reduce sacrilege that that would be a stupid decision. You can’t “stand by” the magisterium and call them stupid at the same time.

 

[kwitz]

tuopaolo:

Byz could you please provide a teaching from the magisterium that Communion on the tongue does not go back to the apostles? If you can’t then stop making these preposterous statements.

Byz and others have shown you proof that Communion in the hand goes back quite far in history. You’re the one claiming Communion on the tongue goes back to the apostles. You need to provide the proof that this is true. We can’t prove the negative for you.

Kris

 

[tuopaolo]

kwitz:

Byz and others have shown you proof that Communion in the hand goes back quite far in history.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do Byz’s nonsensical claim that the MAGISTERIUM of the Church taught Communion in the hand goes back to the apostles and that Communion on the tongue does not.

I’m not trying to convince you that Communion on the tongue goes back to the Apostles. I’m only challenging Byz’s claim that the MAGISTERIUM teaches that it does not. Byz is the ONLY one in this thread who has made such a ludicrous claim – and probably the ONLY one in the world or even in the history of mankind who believes it. I don’t think I’ve heard a claim that is more outlandish.

Let me repeat: Byz did not just claim that Communion on the tongue didn’t go back to the apostles; he claimed that the MAGISTERIUM taught that it didn’t go back to the apostles.

No one in this thread has expressed agreement with him.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Let me repeat: Byz did not just claim that Communion on the tongue didn’t go back to the apostles; he claimed that the MAGISTERIUM taught that it didn’t go back to the apostles.

No one in this thread has expressed agreement with him.

That is not what I said.

I said…

ByzCath:

So you question what the Chruch has said.

There is no evidence to support what you say here. I do believe there is evidence to support communion in hand as an ancient tradition of the Church but I am not going to hunt for it as I believe what the Church states on this matter.

And what you are saying is…

tuopaolo:

I question it. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Communion on the tongue doesn’t go back to apostolic times.

The “it” that you question is reception of the Eucharist in the hand.

No where did I state that reception of the Eucharist on the tongue goes back to the apostles. What I said is that reception in the hand also goes back to the apostles which you deny.

I said that the Church teaches that reception in the hand goes back to ancient times. I think the links I provided with quotes from the early Church Fathers proves this. Again I have not said that reception on the tongue is not also an ancient practice.

So you are incorrect as many here have expressed agreement with me that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is an ancient practice, even the Church agrees.

One last time so you can not accuse me of it again (bolded and underlined for emphasis). I have never said that reception of the Eucharist on the tongue is not an ancient practice.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

The “it” that you question is reception of the Eucharist in the hand.

No it wasn’t. Read the thread, The “it” that I questioned was the statement that Communion in the hand went back to the apostles.

I said that the Church teaches that reception in the hand goes back to ancient times.

Could you please cite any document from the MAGISTERIUM where the MAGISTERIUM teaches that? Do you know what the word “magisterium” means? An individual Church Father is NOT the magisterium! History is not the magisterium! The Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT the magisterium!

So you are incorrect as many here have expressed agreement with me that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is an ancient practice, even the Church agrees.

NO ONE here has expressed agreement with your claim that the MAGISTERIUM teaches that it is an ancient practice.