How do you receive the host?

harinkj · Aug 14, 2005

I have always received the host on my tongue.

Anything else would seem strange to me.

Kathie

Summer_Girl · Aug 14, 2005

Both. If I’m holding my daughter -on the tounge. If not in the hand. I’ve had fragments break off before but I’m very aware of it so I always make sure that I don’t have any fragments on my hand and If I do I consume them. I’ve never had any of Christ’s precious body fall on the floor. In the hand is how I learned so I always get nervous when I take the host on the tounge.

Sage · Aug 14, 2005

Always in the hand. Here is another question I have:

When did the church quit giving the precious blood out at Mass?
2 When was it reinstated?
Why did they stop?

twiztedseraph · Aug 15, 2005

Sage:

Always in the hand. Here is another question I have:

When did the church quit giving the precious blood out at Mass?
2 When was it reinstated?

Why did they stop?

Well you recieve Jesus fully out of just one element of the Eucharist, so it doesn’t really matter.

It was stopped to stop spilling, and considering the great number of people to communicate I’d imagine also for convenience. It was re-instated because numbers can be controlled now and people are somewhat more civilsed.

RC_Traditional · Aug 15, 2005

That 32% who voted communion on the hands commit a sacrilege each time they recieve that way. That what it is if you believe that honestly that is the REAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, YOUR GOD WHO IS HOLY AND SPOTLESS, DEMANDING REVERENCE AS ONLY CONSCECRATED HANDS CAN TOUCH THE HOST as taught by the Church.

RC

Jesus4Me · Aug 15, 2005

RC Traditional:

That 32% who voted communion on the hands commit a sacrilege each time they recieve that way. That what it is if you believe that honestly that is the REAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, YOUR GOD WHO IS HOLY AND SPOTLESS, DEMANDING REVERENCE AS ONLY CONSCECRATED HANDS CAN TOUCH THE HOST as taught by the Church. RC

I only receive on my tounge, but only because it is my personal preference. If what you say is true, why does the Church allow receiving in the hands?

backhome · Aug 15, 2005

Please read the two links I provided a few posts above and they may answer your question(s).

MikeWM · Aug 15, 2005

backhome:

Please read the two links I provided a few posts above and they may answer your question(s).

That’s all very well as an opinion, but the Church teaches receiving in the hand is perfectly permissible (with indult). I somehow doubt the Church is explicitly allowing us to do something sacreligious.

Mike

maklavan · Aug 15, 2005

RC Traditional:

That 32% who voted communion on the hands commit a sacrilege each time they recieve that way. That what it is if you believe that honestly that is the REAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, YOUR GOD WHO IS HOLY AND SPOTLESS, DEMANDING REVERENCE AS ONLY CONSCECRATED HANDS CAN TOUCH THE HOST as taught by the Church. RC

You march to a different drum. The Church rejects your view, stating that both form s of reception must be allowed. I have seen,on TV, both the late Pope John Paul 11 and Pope Benedict give people communion in the hand? are they guilty of sacrilege?

backhome · Aug 15, 2005

Mike WM,
I simply want those who question whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue to read these homilies regarding the subject as it may shed some light for them. I don’t understand your challenge to my post.

Jesus4me, I’ve take a few paragraphs from each homily and posted them here for you. But, they are worth reading in their entirety.

“The Church allows it because the bishops have allowed it, but it is not what the Church desires at all. The documents make it very, very clear that Communion on the tongue is exactly the way that the Church wants Communion to be received.”

The only ones who were allowed to handle the Ark of the Covenant were the priests, and that was if they put two poles in it and they held the poles. They could not touch the ark itself. Not even the high priest was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. Well, if that is the case, what are we doing with the New Covenant?"

"The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand. "

Jesus4Me · Aug 16, 2005

backhome:

Mike WM,
I simply want those who question whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue to read these homilies regarding the subject as it may shed some light for them. I don’t understand your challenge to my post.

**Jesus4me, I’ve take a few paragraphs from each homily and posted them here for you. But, they are worth reading in their entirety. **

“The Church allows it because the bishops have allowed it, but it is not what the Church desires at all. The documents make it very, very clear that Communion on the tongue is exactly the way that the Church wants Communion to be received.”

The only ones who were allowed to handle the Ark of the Covenant were the priests, and that was if they put two poles in it and they held the poles. They could not touch the ark itself. Not even the high priest was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. Well, if that is the case, what are we doing with the New Covenant?"

"The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand. "

I actually do find that receiving on the tounge is more meaningful for me so there’s no need to convince me of the value of it. However, to call receiving in the hand sacrilege when the Church clearly allows it is just wrong. The CHURCH allows it - not just the bishops of America. It seems to me that if the Church was very, very clear about not wanting us to receive in the hand She wouldn’t allow it - period.

maklavan · Aug 16, 2005

“But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand”

Which church is that? Not the Catholic Church, for sure.

Here are a couple of extracts to prove this:

“The Sacred Constitutions of the Liturgy”
" It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowd to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themseves."
“The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully.”
" … the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand."

“Catholic Catechism”

“Laypeople …can also distribute holy communion”

Canon Law

§2 The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ’s faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 §3.

Millions of Catholics all over the world rely on lay people to bring Jesus to them. You would deprive them of this. It seems to me that the issue is not how we receive Jesus in the hand, or on the tongue, but how we receive Him in our hearts.
The only people who oppose this official teaching of the Church are sedevacantists, Lefebvrists or those who think that their private erroneous opinion is more important than obeying Church teaching.

hilde_the_dog · Aug 16, 2005

Gratias Grace:

I recieve the host in my hand after bowing first. May be I will recieve it on toungue some day, but for now I am not ready for that (I have always resieved the host in my hand).

Thank you I agree with you. Even our most conservative priest at RCIA allowed in the hands. You know I love to touch Christ and if only in a completely inadequate way hold him for a second as HE holds me completely forever. Oh and I forgot bowing is a MUST out of reverence as well as saying AMEN (say it out loud) after the priest says “The Body of Christ” at our parish.

backhome · Aug 16, 2005

Okay…I am not the poster that said it was sacrilege. Period.

As I said, I wanted to provide a point-of-view regarding receiving in the hand or on the tongue. I do not appreciate my words being twisted into something they are not.

The only people who oppose this official teaching of the Church are sedevacantists, Lefebvrists or those who think that their private erroneous opinion is more important than obeying Church teaching

If you’re not interested in taking to heart the homilies I provided that is your choice. But to attack me because I offered to shed light on reasons why people who believe receiving on the tongue is important, is wrong. I have never stated anything negative about those who receive in the hand.

Also, I believe the homilies stated that the Church allows communion in the hand but does not desire it.

backhome · Aug 17, 2005

It has been brought to my attention by another poster (and I thank that person for doing it by private message) that my post(s) came across as defensive.

I will have to evaluate this as it does not good for Our Lord or any one learning of His ways to be on a religious board and be defensive in word.

If this is the message that my post(s) convey, that of defensiveness and not strong conviction, I apologize. I certainly do not want to admit that it might be true but…I will work on it. Thanks.

hilde_the_dog · Aug 17, 2005

After reading the threads I was left wondering is not more important that we wish to touch Christ and have Him in us? than how? What is the goal? No need to be Pharisee’s. Personally I when I joined the church did not receive on the tongue because I would smoke and drink coffee before mass (no food) and thus my tongue might look wierd to the Priest and my breath bad. (I felt God always knew what my breath smelled liked even after my lasagne) Since then I have quit smoking after 17 years (bye Camel NF) maybe I’ll stop drinking coffee and receive the host on the tongue .

MikeWM · Aug 17, 2005

backhome:

Mike WM,
I simply want those who question whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue to read these homilies regarding the subject as it may shed some light for them. I don’t understand your challenge to my post.

If I read more into what you said than I thought you did, my apologies.

"The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand. "

But this I do take issue with. The Catholic Church isn’t weak and forced to do what others want. If she didn’t want us to receive Communion in the hand, she would explicitly say so, as she does on many, many other issues.

Mike

space_ghost · Aug 17, 2005

…reverently!

Peace:thumbsup:

Triumpha · Sep 3, 2005

maklavan said:
“But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand”

Which church is that? Not the Catholic Church, for sure.

Here are a couple of extracts to prove this:

“The Sacred Constitutions of the Liturgy”
" It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowd to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themseves."
“The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully.”
" … the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand."

“Catholic Catechism”

“Laypeople …can also distribute holy communion”

Canon Law

§2 The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ’s faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 §3.

Millions of Catholics all over the world rely on lay people to bring Jesus to them. You would deprive them of this. It seems to me that the issue is not how we receive Jesus in the hand, or on the tongue, but how we receive Him in our hearts.
The only people who oppose this official teaching of the Church are sedevacantists, Lefebvrists or those who think that their private erroneous opinion is more important than obeying Church teaching.

Maklavan.

I refer to your posting on the “Men Only - can women be ordained” discussion.

What is the Church? The Pope, the Curia, the Vatican.? All men. surely the people is the Church? How many women were consulted when this decision was made? The statement “The Church has spoken…that’s the end of it” apart from being inaccurate, is staggering in its effrontery. You cannot silence dissent by saying “Shut up! the Church has spoken!” millions left yhe Church in modern times because of this attitude.

So, why have you the “staggering effrontery” to say to traditionalists, basically, “Shut up, the Church has spoken and allows Communion in the Hand”?

Triumpha.

InnocentIII · Sep 3, 2005

Sorry for this late reply but I have been away for a month or so.

palmas85:

Distributing Holy Communion was a duty of the Priest. The readings were a duty of the Priest. Hearing confessions was a duty of the Priest. Baptisms were a duty of the Priest. All of those were duties of the Priest which have now been given over to the laity in many circumstances… So whats next? What other Priestly duties will be given over to the Laity?

I agree with palma here. So many times over the last 30 years as a Catholic, as an RE teacher and as a social being I have heard people pooh pooh the “slippery slope” argument. I am sure they are mostly well-meaning and do not for a moment believe or intend there to be a slippery slope (although frankly some do) and they always look surprised when they find themselves at the bottom and wonder how they got there. When women were first involved as readers…no slippery slope, then when altar girls were introduced…no slippery slope, then women MCs…no slippery slope, then women wearing chasuble like albs…have we reached the slippery slope yet??, or should we wait until all priestless parishes are run by women leading communion services and handing out the host?? It is happening now. And the priest just slips in to consecrate a few hosts now and then. If there is even the remotest chance of a slip or a slope we should think twice about taking the first step. Experience is a better teacher than theory.
palma85:

To say that the Church has never had error is not at all correct. Throughout history numerous heresies have emerged, grown, flourished and ultimately been destroyed. . At the heighth of the Arian heresy probably 3/4 of the Clergy were deeply infected.
There have been times in history when they Papacy was claimed by several at one time. Each of them had followers who truly believed they were correct and following the true church and that they were protected against error. So anyone who says that error cannot enter the church is completely wrong.

Our Lord promised the gates of hell would not prevail, he did not promise an error free existance.
palma85:

Look at it this way. Every Protestant Church as well the Eastern Orthodox Churches came into being as the result of either Schism or outright heresy. Those are hard truths but they are the truth. No matter how you sugarcoat them to satisfy ecumenical feelings, they are true facts and cannot be denied. Error in belief, error in doctrine, error in interpretation, error in whatever form entered the Church and for lack of a better word infected the minds of those who led these movements and caused the great tribulations that almost pulled the Church apart. Those people turned their backs on the Church and freely walked away, rejecting the truth. God didn’t stop them. Jesus didn’t say, you can’t leave my church. No. God gave man free will, to do as he chooses. And they did.

We Catholics can be incredibly naive in many ways. The Church has stood and weathered everything thrown at it for 2000 years. In their 500 year existance there has never been a Protestant Church only churches. This is because of the initial errors of such churches in breaking away from Christ’s Church. Once that was accomplished they were no longer anchored in the Truth and everyman became his own judge of truth. Ergo, every prophet founded his own church. The unity of the Church is a sign of God’s grace, the disunity of the Protestants a sign of his withholding of grace. Nowhere is this more obvious today than in the almost total collapse of mainstream protestantism. Our collapse has come from tieing ourselves to the same bandwagon, but thanks to the promises of Christ we will ride out the storm.

How do you receive the host?

harinkj

Guest

Summer_Girl

Guest

Sage

Guest

twiztedseraph

Guest

RC_Traditional

Guest

Jesus4Me

Guest

backhome

Guest

MikeWM

Guest

maklavan

Guest

backhome

Guest

Jesus4Me

Guest

maklavan

Guest

hilde_the_dog

Guest

backhome

Guest

backhome

Guest

hilde_the_dog

Guest

MikeWM

Guest

space_ghost

Guest

Triumpha

Guest

InnocentIII

Guest