Holy Communion (Need Advice Please)

  • Thread starter Thread starter adam26
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aramis said:
There is no right to receive in the hand unless one is a priest. The bishop may permit reception in the hand, but it isn’t a right.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I was being imprecise.

The US Bishops have stated (and the Vatican has approved) in the GIRM (available online at usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
  1. … When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
So in the US, communicants may receive either on the tongue or in the hand, at their discretion.

If you think this is incorrect, please provide a reference. Thanks.
 
ADam26,

You don’t honestly think that the little dribble of water used when the Priest washes his hands does anything for really cleaning the hands of germs do you? I was kind of amused by your comment…the water is usually cool and most priests use very little.

The CDC mentions that soap must be used to get rid of any germs, water alone does not do the trick and so the priests hands will not be any cleaner than anyone else’s. I know that some Priests will use an alcohol hand sanitizer before distributing and after, but not all do it. To be honest I wish we had had that stuff when I was a Priest!

Lastly this is anecdotal and only my experience, but when I was a Priest about 1/3 of the congregation received on the tongue and I remember my fingers being bitten and licked quite often no matter how hard I tried to avoid it. Any wonder that I ended up having about 3 colds and at least 1 case of the flu per year. Since I left ministry I have averaged 1 cold a year and flu maybe every other year. Coincidence? I think not, because I still interact with large groups of people on a daily basis…they’re just not biting or licking my fingers!
 
While the lavabo is mostly symbolic, most of the priests I know washed their hands in the sink in the sacristy before mass.

And all the roman parishes around here have hand sanitizer on the credence table, and I see clergy and EMHC’s all make use of it.
 
We must all switch to liturgical spoons!!! 👍

Actually, I had a priest hit my teeth with the spoon. So it doesn’t really solve the problem 😊
 
Adam,

I don’t think you will find any satisfactory answers to the questions you posed in your first post.
 
Joannm said:
Prior to the late 60’s, few people actually received communion every Sunday. In my parish the ushers would keep things moving and woudn’t let anyone dawdle at the communion rail. We would have at least 3 priests distributing communion. The priests moved down the line quickly saying his prayer at lighting speed in latin. It really wasn’t a slow reverent receiving as everyone seems to think. So Mass really wasn’t extended at all during this time.

EMs are not used so that lay people have a larger role. They are used because of necessity.
Click to expand...
There is no necessity because, even if the mass took 5 hours longer, that wouldn’t be a necessity, merely a convenience (perhaps an important one, but not a necessity). That being said, this argument always fails because holy communion can simply be distributed after mass in order to take care of this problem. This would actually be a lot better because, if polls are any indication, the vast majority of Catholics (90-95%) at Sunday mass do not accept the Church’s teaching on any number of issues. I doubt most people who make the mad dash to the car before mass is even finished would take the time to receive the blessed sacrament reverently after mass at the hands of the priest. Mass would be shorter; fewer people would commit sacrilege, and no laymen would be needed to distribute the blessed sacrament. Really a win-win-win. The benefit of being able to receive in the context of the mass itself doesn’t outweigh these considerations. Still, most people don’t want to make a splash, so this will not catch on, though there are priests who do this for wedding (other than the bride and groom) and funeral masses on account of the large numbers of non-Catholics frequently present. It lifts any burden from their shoulders and prevents sacrilege from those who are just along for the ride.
 
=CheeseHead1;7489104]Here’s a nice link that summarizes the teachings of the Church on the postures and reception of Holy Communion, courtesy of Catholics United for the Faith:
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=46

To affirm previous comments, you do have a right to receive in your hand or on the tongue.

Here is a nice summary of the changes introduced in the 2002 Generation Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), courtesy of Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/library/liturgy/cag_changes.asp

Finally, here is a gem I just ran across today - letters from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments clarifying that

“… communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”.

(emphasis added)

ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/kneeling.htm

So in the eyes of the Vatican:
  1. It is not disobedient to receive Holy Communion kneeling
  2. It is licit to receive Holy Communion kneeling (if it’s not illicit, it must be licit)
God Bless!
Click to expand...
I concur with the meaasge AND the site sources.

VERY WELL DONE:thumbsup:

One suggestion; if YOU choose to kneel as is your right; you may wish to be at the end of the line so noone stumbles over you? JUST a suggestion. I genuflct ad then revceive our Lord. [Not sure I could get back up if I knelt.] 🙂

God Bless,
Pat
 
adam26 said:
Interesting quote from St. Cyril:

“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.”

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis”, 21: PG 33. col 1125 (c. 350 AD) as cited by the Quintsext Synod of Trullo Canon 101 (c. 692 AD)
Click to expand...
Adam,

That was the quote I was thinking of, though for some reason I was thinking St. Thomas More the martyr was the one who wrote it.

That being said, my personal preference is to receive it on the tongue, though, of course, not so as to make a show of it.
 
IntegraCatholic said:
This would actually be a lot better because, if polls are any indication, the vast majority of Catholics (90-95%) at Sunday mass do not accept the Church’s teaching on any number of issues.
Click to expand...
And any Catholic with non-catholic friends were violating the teachings of the church prior to 1950… and Many, if not Most, Catholics did. It’s nothing new.

Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. A disobedient one…
 
Jean_Anthony said:
Just as a point of clarification, the Holy Father was asked why he gives the host only on the tongue. He replied that he became aware that some who received from him in the hand were taking the host as a souvenier instead of eating it.
Click to expand...
Can you please cite the source of the Holy Father’s quotation?

(What you say may be true, but it is not the reason that he publicly gave when he went to 100% distribution of communion on the tongue a few years ago.)
 
adam26 said:
Interesting quote from St. Cyril:

“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.”

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis”, 21: PG 33. col 1125 (c. 350 AD) as cited by the Quintsext Synod of Trullo Canon 101 (c. 692 AD)
Click to expand...
With all due respect to St. Cyril, he does not set liturgical disciplines. Moreover, what “may” have been true in his day may not be today. The sainthood of a person does not give him authority over current liturgical disciplines.

If you want to know the liturgical norms of today, read the magisterial norms of today. For example, MEMORIALE DOMINI: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion. This document was issued to try to contain the abuses caused by communion in the hand (but ultimately failed to do so):

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Yet more regarding the St. Cyril of Jerusalem canard:

A more rigorous study of available evidence from Church history and
from writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion
in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and
eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue. Rather,
facts seem to point to a different conclusion: Pope St. Leo the Great
(440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments
on the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel he speaks of Communion in the
mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by
faith.” (2) The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but
as if this were a well established thing.
A century and a half later Pope St. Gregory the Great (died in 604) is
another witness. In his dialogues he relates how Pope St. Agapitus performed
a miracle during Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into
someone’s mouth.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
 
CheeseHead1 said:
Forgive me if I was being imprecise.

The US Bishops have stated (and the Vatican has approved) in the GIRM (available online at usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

So in the US, communicants may receive either on the tongue or in the hand, at their discretion.

If you think this is incorrect, please provide a reference. Thanks.
Click to expand...
From Redemptionis Sacramentum, paragraph 92 (notice the last sentence):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful
 
Lepanto said:
Can you please cite the source of the Holy Father’s quotation?

(What you say may be true, but it is not the reason that he publicly gave when he went to 100% distribution of communion on the tongue a few years ago.)
Click to expand...
If you go to the page for Dec. 6th and look for the thread ‘Pope Benedict and CITH’ you will see the thread I started giving the relevant quotes from his latest book.

Not only does he state that reason (i.e. the risk of people keeping ‘his’ Host as a souvenir) for only giving COTT, he also states that he has no objection in principle for CITH.
 
Aramis said:
And any Catholic with non-catholic friends were violating the teachings of the church prior to 1950… and Many, if not Most, Catholics did. It’s nothing new.

Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. A disobedient one…
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely true. I suppose it depends what you mean by “friend”. There are varying levels of excommunicates, and not all non-Catholics fall into vitandus; in fact, the vast, vast majority do not, either under the 1917 code, the current code, or the canons that predate 1917, though these latter were the most strict, from what I understand.

Moreover, there is a very real difference between casual acquaintance or even friendship with a non-Catholic (especially depending upon the reason, e.g., utility or necessity) and committing acts that are contrary to reason and to natural law. I’m not saying it’s a good thing to have non-Catholic friends but just that using contraception or holding beliefs in direct contradiction of Church teaching is much worse. To equate the two scenarios is to distort the gravity of each.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top