If you partake Communion COT, why do you do this?

[Oneofthewomen]

I think its the various negatives that are confusing people i.e. No, he wouldn’t not receive from a Deacon = he would receive from a Deacon. Isn’t grammar fun.

You asked if it meant I will not receive from a deacon. My answer is no, that is not what it means.

AAAHHHH… now I see my mistake.
Sorry At Trent, I was misunderstanding you.
Part of the problem, as I stated, is that I run into a lot of very contradictory things when discussing issues such as this with that those who identify as “traditional Catholics”. I will be a little more careful in how I pose my questions the next time.

 

[At_Trent]

AAAHHHH… now I see my mistake.
Sorry At Trent, I was misunderstanding you.
Part of the problem, as I stated, is that I run into a lot of very contradictory things when discussing issues such as this with that those who identify as “traditional Catholics”. I will be a little more careful in how I pose my questions the next time.

No biggie.

 

[ElToro]

Right. But I was responding to the claim:

“I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.”

IF this were the teaching, EMHCs would not be allowed, we would not be ablet to receive CITH.

I would question, IF only consecrated hands can touch the hosts, why does the same not apply to consecrated tongues? We sin as much with our tongues as with our hands.

The claim is simply false.

Bingo. The only reason I even respond to something like this is because such misinformation could mislead those who simply don’t know what the Church teaches/directs and what She does not.

 

[ElToro]

I normally receive Communion on the tongue but I will receive in the hand if I am or sick or I think the priest is too unsteady to give on the tongue.

That is very considerate. Most who demand COT could care less about such things it would seem.

 

[ElToro]

If it’s not allowed, it’s not allowed. Let’s see a document that says it’s forbidden. If there is a teaching to that effect, show us. ***You’re the one claiming that the Church teaches as such; you’re the one making the claim…let’s see you back up your statement. ***

*SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. *

Took me abou t5 seconds to google it.

Do you deny that EMHCs are allowed to touch the Eucharist?

I fail to understand what part of “It’s allowed; hence it’s not forbidden.” you don’t understand.

Please explain how the Church can allow CITH and EMHCs if what you claim is true.

Nice proof. Excellent.

 

[ElToro]

It is exactly one such issue as spoken here amongst others that divides Conservative and Liberal Catholics alike.

There is no such thing. I suppose you could say conservative and liberal-minded Catholics but even that language is problematic. Best not to try to apply political meanings to the faith I think.

I do remember a time when far much more respect was owed to the Sacred Consecrated Host whereby Communion Paten’s were used by altar boys serving alongside priests so as to stop unseen consecrated crumbs from the host from falling unto the floor. Seems in many Catholic Parishes on an International level is means very little. Oh well guess nobody wants to think or even venture to believe in unseen consecrate crumbs from the hosts anymore. Few Catholic Churches today even use a communion Paten. Guess its just an old outdated superficial custom of bygone years that once had meaning to some. And what of the Consecrated Hands of a respected Priest? Has that not lost some significance over the years. Looking back to the time of Moses and the Ark of the Covenant and only few priest were allowed to have access of touching the Sacred Tablets. The Sacred Hosts in the Chalice are the New ark of the Covenant. The word Sacred is sometimes undermined.

While I think the appearence of servers with patens is a good idea, they always seemed to have very little practical value. If the “crumbs” are unseen, that means they are not distinguishable as the Blessed Sacrament which means they are not the Blessed Sacrament.

We’re Catholic Christians, not Jews. Consecrated hands do not confect the Eucharist. Jesus Christ does in the Person of a Catholic priest.

 

[centurionguard]

There is no such thing. I suppose you could say conservative and liberal-minded Catholics but even that language is problematic. Best not to try to apply political meanings to the faith I think.

While I think the appearance of servers with patens is a good idea, they always seemed to have very little practical value. If the “crumbs” are unseen, that means they are not distinguishable as the Blessed Sacrament which means they are not the Blessed Sacrament.

We’re Catholic Christians, not Jews. Consecrated hands do not confect the Eucharist. Jesus Christ does in the Person of a Catholic priest.

Best not to try to apply political meanings to the faith I think.

Far more liturgical than being remotely political IMHO.

If the “crumbs” are unseen, that means they are not distinguishable as the Blessed Sacrament which means they are not the Blessed Sacrament.

Ah; then that’s were I think there’s a problem. In being a Catholic the Faithful are required to believe that Jesus is fully and substantially present in ever morsel, crumb, fiber and sub-atomic aspect of any one Sacred Consecrated Host.

Making anyone of these physical aspects indistinguishable even by unseen human eyes doesn’t justify ignoring any part of the entirety of any one Eucharist that has been consecrated with Jesus Christ Himself (“hidden”) miraculously inside.

The fact of a priest (or shall I say some priest) in differentiating parishes who choose to use a required Chalice Paten isn’t purely accidental in its purposed usage.
There is a valid reason why the priest purifies the Paten accompanied with the Chalice.

There was a two fold reason why Altar boys used hand-held Communion Paten’s in due respect related to the sacred consecrated hosts given to the Faithful.

 

[JButky]

Greetings to Catholic Answers Forum,

Why is COT your perferred manner of partaking the Blesseed Sacrament if you take COT?
What are the advanatages of taking Communion COT?

God bless.
Anathama Sit

Well for me, there is something rather humbling about the act of “being fed” and receiving nourishment rather than being handed and taking food. I go to Mass too be fed. It is not something I can make for myself.

Secondly, Eating with my hands is usually for things like cookies, snacks, potato chips, pizza. I try not to eat well prepared, excellent meat with my hands. (Spiritual food or otherwise )

The Precious cup is somewhat the same. I would never stick my hand in the cup and lick my fingers…

Joe B

 

[At_Trent]

well, here is a summary of on topic replies

For a reason which is represented visually by a word starting with the letter “r” and ending with the letter “e” which I will not type because of a sure flame war to be started if I do, and possibly a violation of forum rules. It’s very sad.

Greetings to those posting and or reading this thread,

I usually attend TLM, but I have begun to attend the Novus Ordo Missae when I go and visit with my friends. Usually I do not have a problem with receiving COT, but I know in the past some of my friends have made a big deal out of it, and I am sure of how to respond to them when they ask me about why I receive COT.

I tell them I am not against CIH, but for me, I feel that to receive COT it helps me to be more reverant to think more about what I am doing. I don’t feel worthy to hold Jesus in my unconsecrated hands. I do not want to make it look as if I am judging them, and am unsure as how to respond to them.

God bless you guys for responding.
Anathama Sit

If you’re using crutches and have some balance problems due to the cast/bandages, etc., Communion in the hand isn’t really a safe option. That’s why I started receiving Communion on my tongue about four years ago.

It does absolutely nothing, nada, zilch for me in terms of “feeling more reverent.”

As an evangelical Protestant for 47 years, I was trained from toddlerhood to avoid seeking emotional highs, mystical experiences, and any kinds of “experiential” worship, so perhaps that’s why the method of receiving the Lord doesn’t matter two pins to me.

Communion is not about me at all, but about the One that I am receiving, the Lord Jesus Christ. As long as He has instructed His Church to allow Himself to be received in the hand or on the tongue in the United States, who am I to argue with Him?

Just recently at my parish, one of the EMsHC dropped the host trying to place it on my tongue, and since then, I’ve been spooked enough to go back to receiving in my hand. I think it’s much more secure, unless I have to use crutches.

I converted Easter Vigil 2011, so I haven’t been receiving our Lord for that long. I feel like it is more reverent, for me. I don’t feel right holding Him in my hands. Most places we go, CIH is standard. My wife and daughter receive CIH, it’s just not for me. I have a fascination with “traditional” or “old school” Catholicism, I think it comes from being a protestant for 30+ years. Before I converted, I could pick and choose practices and ideas with very little boundary. I had a lot of “freedom” in my faith. I guess I feel drawn to the “old school” way of doing things.

I don’t push my preference for COT on others. If the Bishops say either way is fine, then its OK with me.

I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

I have not seen a Church document stating this teaching has been reversed.

Like Cat, receiving COT is a matter of practicality for me. I’m usually holding a baby during Communion.

And if I’m not, then I can avoid busting out the hand sanitizer after the Sign of Peace and getting dirty looks from the people around me. Then I can just wash my hands after Mass. With a LO and having been a teacher I’ve become a bit of a germaphobe.

I normally receive Communion on the tongue but I will receive in the hand if I am or sick or I think the priest is too unsteady to give on the tongue.

I started receiving on the tongue when I started receiving the low gluten host. At the time, I was receiving just a piece of it. It was very crumbly. (Think rice cracker) I didn’t want to have some of it left on my hand.

Now I generally receive a whole piece, so it wouldn’t matter if I want back to receiving in the hand. But once in a while I receive a piece and I don’t want to be one that goes back and forth.

It is exactly one such issue as spoken here amongst others that divides Conservative and Liberal Catholics alike.

I do remember a time when far much more respect was owed to the Sacred Consecrated Host whereby Communion Paten’s were used by altar boys serving alongside priests so as to stop unseen consecrated crumbs from the host from falling unto the floor. Seems in many Catholic Parishes on an International level is means very little. Oh well guess nobody wants to think or even venture to believe in unseen consecrate crumbs from the hosts anymore. Few Catholic Churches today even use a communion Paten. Guess its just an old outdated superficial custom of bygone years that once had meaning to some. And what of the Consecrated Hands of a respected Priest? Has that not lost some significance over the years. Looking back to the time of Moses and the Ark of the Covenant and only few priest were allowed to have access of touching the Sacred Tablets. The Sacred Hosts in the Chalice are the New ark of the Covenant. The word Sacred is sometimes undermined.

 

[ElToro]

Far more liturgical than being remotely political IMHO.

Ah; then that’s were I think there’s a problem. In being a Catholic the Faithful are required to believe that Jesus is fully and substantially present in ever morsel, crumb, fiber and sub-atomic aspect of any one Sacred Consecrated Host.

Making anyone of these physical aspects indistinguishable even by unseen human eyes doesn’t justify ignoring any part of the entirety of any one Eucharist that has been consecrated with Jesus Christ Himself (“hidden”) miraculously inside.

The fact of a priest (or shall I say some priest) in differentiating parishes who choose to use a required Chalice Paten isn’t purely accidental in its purposed usage.
There is a valid reason why the priest purifies the Paten accompanied with the Chalice.

There was a two fold reason why Altar boys used hand-held Communion Paten’s in due respect related to the sacred consecrated hosts given to the Faithful.

Wrong!

You want an example? You give holy communion to someone in the hospital after they request it. They try to chew/swallow the host but they regurgitate it instead. After trying, it’s clear they can only consume a small fraction of the host, which they do. Handling it with the reverence do the Blessed Sacrament, the balance of that host may then be soaked it water until it is unidentifiable as the Blessed Sacrament. The water may then (and only then) be poured down the sacrarium or a flower bed/ground not stepped upon.

To infer communion patens have value because they catch sub-atomic “particles” is silly, not to mention wrong. It’s these sorts of fables that confuse people.

 

[ClayPots47]

For a reason which is represented visually by a word starting with the letter “r” and ending with the letter “e” which I will not type because of a sure flame war to be started if I do, and possibly a violation of forum rules. It’s very sad.

What is sad is the continual insistence by some that one method is more r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ than the other, which is what typically foments the flame war. Everybody just needs to respect that 1) The Church allows both, and 2) The decision is the communicant’s. And as many have pointed out, r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ e comes from the interior, the heart, and one can be just as r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ receiving from one method, as the other.

 

[ClayPots47]

I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

I have not seen a Church document stating this teaching has been reversed.

Not reversed, but definitely updated. Besides, what could it be reversed to? That only non-consecrated hands may touch the Blessed Sacrament? It is no longer correct that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament. For example, deacons are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and their hands are not consecrated. The Church did at one time teach that only consecrated hands may touch the Blessed Sacrament, but the Church/Popes have since allowed unconsecrated hands to touch the Blessed Sacrament. The Church has since taught that EMHC may be used, and therefore they may touch the Blessed Sacrament, and the Church has since taught, where permission has been given, that the laity may touch the Blessed Sacrament by reception in the hand

Here is what the Church currently teaches (and this is just ine source, there are others):

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT
INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] 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.

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

Domenico Sorrentino
Archbishop Secretary

 

[ClayPots47]

You see, I do not know where I would fall in this spectrum, just as long as I don’t have to go through the discomfort of having the Host placed in my unconsecrated hands, then I am not sure if I would have a problem receiving from a non priest, however thankfully in my life I have been blessed to always have been able to receive from a priest.

Regardless of whether a priest, deacon or EMHC is distributing, your choice to receive in the manner in which you wish, and what the Church allows, remains the same. Therefore you would not have to go through any discomfort of receiving in unconsecrated hands, but COTT if that is your preference.

 

[At_Trent]

Not reversed, but definitely updated…The Church did at one time teach that only consecrated hands may touch the Blessed Sacrament, …

"I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

I have not seen a Church document stating this teaching has been reversed."

Thank you for showing my statement is correct. You didn’t include important parts of Redemptionis Sacramentum, but that’s for another thread… per the OP’s request.

 

[yablabo]

Greetings to Catholic Answers Forum,

Why is COT your perferred manner of partaking the Blesseed Sacrament if you take COT?
What are the advanatages of taking Communion COT?

God bless.
Anathama Sit

I prefer it because particles which have broken off other “hosts” can be present (often are) on the “host” the priest administers, which then can be slaked off onto one’s hand and subsequently the floor, leaving the processing congregants to trample upon Our Lord until He is vacuumed up and deposited in the trash (to stay there until the accidents of the particles corrupt).

The advantages of receiving Holy Communion on one’s tongue are dependent upon the one receiving mainly: the greater appreciation for the sanctity of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, prevention of personal loss of particles, etc. There are a few objective advantages also, such as keeping people who would steal the Eucharist from doing so as easily, etc.

– Nicole

 

[tassitus]

I’ve been away from the “forums” (awkward word) for a while - good to be back.

In response to the original question, I receive on the tongue because deep in my heart something tells me that is the way I should. It just feels right to me, while receiving in the hand feels much less so.

Also, I prefer to attend/assist at a local Dominican priory these days (when not at my regular parish), where the communion rail is well used and I’ve yet to see even one EMHC. Those who choose to receive in the hand there seem a bit “indisposed” actually, due to the physical maneuvering required to do so from one’s knees.

I will add that years ago I felt otherwise on this issue - but that’s a long story, perhaps not appropriate on this thread.

Peace all.

 

[ClayPots47]

"I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

I have not seen a Church document stating this teaching has been reversed."

Thank you for showing my statement is correct. You didn’t include important parts of Redemptionis Sacramentum, but that’s for another thread… per the OP’s request.

Has taught it, yes; more or less, that it is the role of the priest, who just happens to have consecrated hands…The rest is a straw-man, as why would the Church reverse it? But the teaching has been changed, which the quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum show, but not reversed. I included the parts relevant to this argument. The point others are making out to you, is that the statement now is only partially correct. The Church has since taught that non-consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament; mainly the deacon, who is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion. As for the OP, he doesn’t get to dictate thread drift, it happens because of people making statements like you did, that others feel should not be left unchallenged. Only the moderators can decide if the thread is too off-topic, the OP can ask a moderator of he so wishes.

You later posted:

Sorry, but no one on this forum can claim this statement is wrong with anything to back it up.

“I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.”

The Church has indeed taught this for centuries and you can’t provide a single Church document or writing by a Doctor of the Church that states otherwise. Not one.

Again, an indult doesn’t cut it.

Because it’s a straw-man argument: again I ask, why would the Church reverse it? There is no reason to reverse it, but the Church found reason to change it, and she did. It isn’t wrong, but it isn’t accurate either. It isn’t so much the fact that the hands are consecrated, but more correctly that it was strictly the role of the priest. And the role of the deacon was not by indult, unlike CITH. Since he is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and he does not have consecrated hands, what the Church has taught, is not what the Church currently teaches. As I stated to someone in another thread, insisting that “The Catechism of The Council of Trent says 'Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful,
the Holy Eucharist.” and this could not be changed".

“The Church didn’t stop at Trent, Ecumenical Councils followed Trent. Popes wrote Encyclicals, the teaching authority set aside and/or abrogated past traditions and disciplines, and adjusted or developed new ones.”

Brother JReducation gave an excellent series of posts explaining exactly how and why the Church can, and has, done just that.

BTW, the priests hands are not consecrated for the purpose of distribution of Holy Communion, but for the confection of the Eucharist during the Mass. Which is the other point some have tried to make to you, but you keep resurrecting your pet straw man; your reason for only receiving from a priest does not reflect current Church teaching, specifically the role of the deacon as Ordinary Minister, along with the priest. It is therefore not entirely correct to say that the Church has taught that only that the hands of the priest are to touch the Blessed Sacrament, as the fact his hands are consecrated is irrelevant; which is why a deacon is also an Ordinary Minister, despite his not having consecrated hands. Your reasoning for receiving has no basis in current Church teaching, which is what you are bound to accept. Therefore the deacon is equal to the priest as both are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. And you should receive equally from either, since the Church has made their role in distributing the Eucharist to be be exactly the same.

 

[ElToro]

Has taught it, yes; more or less, that it is the role of the priest, who just happens to have consecrated hands…The rest is a straw-man, as why would the Church reverse it? But the teaching has been changed, which the quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum show, but not reversed. I included the parts relevant to this argument. The point others are making out to you, is that the statement now is only partially correct. The Church has since taught that non-consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament; mainly the deacon, who is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion. As for the OP, he doesn’t get to dictate thread drift, it happens because of people making statements like you did, that others feel should not be left unchallenged. Only the moderators can decide if the thread is too off-topic, the OP can ask a moderator of he so wishes.

You later posted:

Because it’s a straw-man argument: again I ask, why would the Church reverse it? There is no reason to reverse it, but the Church found reason to change it, and she did. It isn’t wrong, but it isn’t accurate either. It isn’t so much the fact that the hands are consecrated, but more correctly that it was strictly the role of the priest. And the role of the deacon was not by indult, unlike CITH. Since he is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and he does not have consecrated hands, what the Church has taught, is not what the Church currently teaches. As I stated to someone in another thread, insisting that “The Catechism of The Council of Trent says 'Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful,
the Holy Eucharist.” and this could not be changed".

Brother JReducation gave an excellent series of posts explaining exactly how and why the Church can, and has, done just that.

BTW, the priests hands are not consecrated for the purpose of distribution of Holy Communion, but for the confection of the Eucharist during the Mass. Which is the other point some have tried to make to you, but you keep resurrecting your pet straw man; your reason for only receiving from a priest does not reflect current Church teaching, specifically the role of the deacon as Ordinary Minister, along with the priest. It is therefore not entirely correct to say that the Church has taught that only that the hands of the priest are to touch the Blessed Sacrament, as the fact his hands are consecrated is irrelevant; which is why a deacon is also an Ordinary Minister, despite his not having consecrated hands. Your reasoning for receiving has no basis in current Church teaching, which is what you are bound to accept. Therefore the deacon is equal to the priest as both are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. And you should receive equally from either, since the Church has made their role in distributing the Eucharist to be be exactly the same.

Sublime… I hope that it’s understood…

 

[ElToro]

I prefer it because particles which have broken off other “hosts” can be present (often are) on the “host” the priest administers, which then can be slaked off onto one’s hand and subsequently the floor, leaving the processing congregants to trample upon Our Lord until He is vacuumed up and deposited in the trash (to stay there until the accidents of the particles corrupt).

The advantages of receiving Holy Communion on one’s tongue are dependent upon the one receiving mainly: the greater appreciation for the sanctity of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, prevention of personal loss of particles, etc. There are a few objective advantages also, such as keeping people who would steal the Eucharist from doing so as easily, etc.

– Nicole

I gotta say, some reasons given to receive COT are just silly. The particle comment is just ridiculous. Even worse though is the suggestion that receiving CIH somehow aids people who wish to steal the Eucharist. That’s actually offensive.

The second time I ever received Holy Communion I “made my mouth dry”, received on the tongue (the only way in those days) went back to the pew, removed the Blessed Sacrament from my tongue and began examining it closely (it was dry) UNTIL my father noticed…

 

[yablabo]

I gotta say, some reasons given to receive COT are just silly. The particle comment is just ridiculous. Even worse though is the suggestion that receiving CIH somehow aids people who wish to steal the Eucharist. That’s actually offensive.

The second time I ever received Holy Communion I “made my mouth dry”, received on the tongue (the only way in those days) went back to the pew, removed the Blessed Sacrament from my tongue and began examining it closely (it was dry) UNTIL my father noticed…

Well, I am not sure what there is to ridicule in “the particle comment.” You’ll have to enlighten me.

Also, if you pay particular attention to the words used in my post…since the words do communicate the sense which I wished to convey…you’ll notice that I stated, “keeping people who would steal the Eucharist from doing so as easily.” Take offense if offense is given, and, as Our Lord commanded, judge just judgment. I’m not in any way saying, as you attest, that a person could not steal the Eucharist by receiving it in his mouth, merely that it is easier to do so when received in hand. I even happened to see a young man of 17 or 18 years old who received the Eucharist in his hand last Sunday never to put it in his mouth, but rather walk away with it, the priest none-the-wiser. And, no, he didn’t carry it in a pix.

– Nicole