Holy Communion

[Alethiaphile]

Alethiaphile;3600330:

I am aware of what self communicating is. The non-celebrating priest takes the Host himself, not from the hand of the distributer.

If a non-celebrating priest self-communicates as you describe, then I say that is in itself an example of excessive clericalism. Not to mention being just goofy as well. Joe

 

[NeedImprovement]

Around here the majority receive Holy Communion in the hand. On many (yes many) occasions attending Mass at St. Joseph’s Oratory, I can recall a (probably non-catholic) communicant attempting to walk off with the consecrated Host in their hand and having to be stopped by the priest or fellow communicant and being asked to consume It…can’t see that as a good thing.

Whaddaya think ?..excessive layism

 

[Alethiaphile]

Around here the majority receive Holy Communion in the hand. On many (yes many) occasions attending Mass at St. Joseph’s Oratory, I can recall a (probably non-catholic) communicant attempting to walk off with the consecrated Host in their hand and having to be stopped by the priest or fellow communicant and being asked to consume It…can’t see that as a good thing.
Whaddaya think ?..excessive layism

That communicant may very well have been Catholic. I would say it is excess individualism, not recognizing that the Eucharist is a celebration of the community. As well as being just goofy. Joe

 

[elt1956]

Still no support. As to the quote by St. Cyril, I’ve heard that that likely was not written by him but by his successor who was not very orthodox.

As to how the Apostles received, still no evidence. Let’s say that they did receive Communion in the and, they’re the Apostles, Bishops. They have the authority to touch the Sacred Species.

The quote that is allegedly by St. Cyril (no disrespect intended Sure) is the only defense I ever hear for Communion in the hand in the early Church.

Anybody have anything else?

elt1956, as to your question:
Didn’t Jesus say to Judas something like “He who dips his bread with me (in the bowl) will betray me”?
I will look this up in that book I mentioned earlier to see how we’re misreading it. I looked this up before when I first got it, but at the time the whole book went a bit over my head - it’s VERY detailed!

Hi LML. What is the name of the book? I am on a roll reading whatever I can about the church, doctrine etc. Thanks. elt1956 By the way, I am not of the opinion that Communion in the hand is any BETTER than on the tongue. Just that I think either way is great. Peace.

 

[NeedImprovement]

That communicant may very well have been Catholic. I would say it is excess individualism, not recognizing that the Eucharist is a celebration of the community. As well as being just goofy. Joe

Sometimes sacred Hosts are stolen on purpose. My only point (which I didn’t appear to make so well) was that they are easier to steal in the hand than in the mouth…but I digress from the subject of the thread. Concerning the question asked by latinmasslover:

Judging from the last two Instructions which mentioned handling of the sacred species in more than just a passing manner - MEMORIALE DOMINI ,May 29,1969 (Pope Paul VI) and DOMINICAE CENAE , Feb. 24,1980 (Pope John Paul II) I think it’s fair to say that neither Pope Paul VI nor Pope John Paul II “spoke favorably” ergo “encouraged” receiving Holy Communion in the hand.

A certain degree of care and concern needs to be accorded the sacred particles of Holy Communion; no matter how small a particle may be, our loving Lord is still present in that particle - Body, Blood Soul and Divinity.

 

[Newzie52]

As the Last Supper was, indeed, a supper, it is reasonable to assume that it was eaten according to the custom of the times, e.g., reclining at table. Jesus blessed and broke the bread and “gave it to them”; I just don’t see Jesus placing pieces of actual bread in the Apostles’ mouths. Simple common sense, and usual practices, would indicate that they took the consecrated bread in their hands and ate as they would ordinarily. They probably passed the cup, one to another, as well.

Bottom line is, it is allowed, either way today - on the tongue or in the hand. There just seems to be so many other things with which to concern ourselves.

 

[Joannm]

latinmasslover;3600160:

Priests self-communicate when they’re not celebrating or concelebrating? That’s a new one on me. How exactly would that work- does the non-celebrating priest walk up to the altar after the consecration and take a wafer and consume it? In 23 years of being Catholic, I don’t remember observing anything like that. Joe

I, as and extraordinary minister of HC have given communion to priests who were not concelebrating. They came up in line like everyone else and received like everyone else.

 

[Lepanto]

As the Last Supper was, indeed, a supper, it is reasonable to assume that it was eaten according to the custom of the times, e.g., reclining at table. Jesus blessed and broke the bread and “gave it to them”; I just don’t see Jesus placing pieces of actual bread in the Apostles’ mouths. Simple common sense, and usual practices, would indicate that they took the consecrated bread in their hands and ate as they would ordinarily. They probably passed the cup, one to another, as well.

Bottom line is, it is allowed, either way today - on the tongue or in the hand. There just seems to be so many other things with which to concern ourselves.

The apostles were the first bishops.

 

[Newzie52]

The apostles were the first bishops.

Indeed they were. However, the choice to receive on the tongue or in the hand is currently ours. Until such time as it is not, I’m going to receive, reverently, in the hand, and you can receive, reverently, on the tongue.

 

[elt1956]

latinmasslover;3600160:

Priests self-communicate when they’re not celebrating or concelebrating? That’s a new one on me. How exactly would that work- does the non-celebrating priest walk up to the altar after the consecration and take a wafer and consume it? In 23 years of being Catholic, I don’t remember observing anything like that. Joe

I DO remember priests drinking the remaining wine. I am assuming the remaining wafers were placed in the tabernacle.

 

[latinmasslover]

That communicant may very well have been Catholic. I would say it is excess individualism, not recognizing that the Eucharist is a celebration of the community. As well as being just goofy. Joe

Would you label yourself a liberal?

 

[latinmasslover]

Hi LML. What is the name of the book? I am on a roll reading whatever I can about the church, doctrine etc. Thanks. elt1956 By the way, I am not of the opinion that Communion in the hand is any BETTER than on the tongue. Just that I think either way is great. Peace.

How Christ Said The First Mass. You can order it from TAN I believe. Enjoy.

 

[latinmasslover]

Alethiaphile;3600231:

I DO remember priests drinking the remaining wine. I am assuming the remaining wafers were placed in the tabernacle.

The remaining Hosts, you mean? Yes, you assume correctly.

 

[latinmasslover]

Alethiaphile;3600231:

I, as and extraordinary minister of HC have given communion to priests who were not concelebrating. They came up in line like everyone else and received like everyone else.

Hmm, I’ve never seen it happen that way. Then again, I don’t see many priests at a Mass where they’re not con/celebrating.

Anyone know the proper form in this case, officially?

 

[Jennifer_J]

It seems to me, you have to look past the institution of the Mass at the Last Supper and try to discern how the early Christians recieved the Eucharist. I really am no historian and have no real idea. I would imagine that reception of the Eucharist has evolved over time–what kind of bread was used, whether intiction was used, etc. I do know that receiving on the hand has been approved-- we can receive either way, no matter my personal preference or yours for that matter.

 

[Lepanto]

I do know that receiving on the hand has been approved-- we can receive either way, no matter my personal preference or yours for that matter.

Yes, it has been approved in the US, but even then it is considered an inferior method. And know that in much of the world it has never been approved.

Numerous posts with Church documents showing this have been posted in various threads the past couple days so I won’t repeat them…

 

[NeedImprovement]

Anyone who would take the time to read MEMORIALE DOMINI, (May 29, 1969) , to learn where the majority of our world’s bishops stood on the matter of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, might be persuaded to agree that the word “permitted” is a little more appropriate than “approved”.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Joannm;3602135:

Hmm, I’ve never seen it happen that way. Then again, I don’t see many priests at a Mass where they’re not con/celebrating.

Anyone know the proper form in this case, officially?

I think, because priests are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they are permitted to take the Host themselves while receiving Holy Communion.

Inaestimabile Donum
Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980
9. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another…
11… The Church has always required from the faithful respect and reverence for the Eucharist at the moment of receiving it.

This however has never restricted them to not being able to receive as any member of the faithful while attending a celebration at which they are not presiding or concelebrating. This form could be interpreted as an indication of respect requested by the section 11 above.

There are all types of exceptions too. I’ve been at celebrations where the same priest (who is half paralyzed and suffers from parkinsons) presided and received Communion as any presider does; concelebrated and either self-communicated or had the Communion placed on his tongue (these last two instances are directly proportional to the teperament of the presider with whom this priest concelebrated).

I’m trying to read between the lines here, so although that might lend a little proximity to your question’s answer LML, it wouldn’t cover everything.

 

[elt1956]

Would you label yourself a liberal?

Dear Alethiaphile,

Hi am getting in the middle here, so I am sorry if I step on toes. I would describe the Mass as being a celebration of a community of the Mystical Body of Christ celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass. Peace.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Indeed they were. However, the choice to receive on the tongue or in the hand is currently ours. Until such time as it is not, I’m going to receive, reverently, in the hand, and you can receive, reverently, on the tongue.

While there seems to be a movement towards making concessions in the thread, I believe Newzie52 has found the operative word - "reverently". It is how things stand; on the tongue or in the hand.

Here is a short excerpt from Pope John Paul II’s DOMINCAE CENAE. Directly prior to this excerpt his Holiness was speaking of certain abuses involving reception of Holy Communion in the hand. See now how delicately he refers to those who receive Holy Communion reverently in the hand:

LETTER
DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH
ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARIST

“…This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.”

There’s the word again - reverently. That passage was worded delicately for a reason. Pope John Paul II wanted to be careful not to discourage anyone from receiving Holy Communion. I’m afraid my wording isn’t always up to his standards, and would also like to apologize if I’ve stepped on any toes.

God Bless.