Is kissing the host before consuming ok?

[Tarpeian_Rock]

If anything, the communion in the hand was never done like it is today. The concept was that the person would receive it in their hand, bow themselves over to their hand and receive at that point without ever touching the Eucharist with their fingers or moving it to their mouths. Lay people were never to be able to move the Eucharist or touch it with their fingers… only the priest had the right to do so.

What is done today is completely contrary to that.

IMO, kissing the Host should not be done for the same reason why it shouldn’t be taken in the hand. Kissing the Host will leave particles on the lips. Particles that can easily fall off the lips and onto the ground. Receiving the Host on the hand leaves particles on the hands, particles that can easily fall off the hands and onto the ground. This is one of the major reasons why CITH was banned to begin with.

The whole is equal to the part. Each small little particle (even those that you cannot see!) of the Eucharist is the whole of Christ.

Do you have documentation for your first statement? Because I don’t see how that method of receiving would work, as what you described implies that the person either licks up the Eucharist with their tongue, or “pops” it into their mouth without using their fingers – either way seeming to me to be hugely less reverent that the prescribed way today.

And to your last statement, I thought the teaching was that the Presence remained only insofar as the matter remained visibly bread. A particle “too small to see” would not fit that definition.

 

[Saints_Alive]

You still failed to answer the question. you can’t receive the host without touching it, whether hands or tongue. If the reason not to use your hand is because they are not consecrated, how do you figure your tongue is? It has nothing to do with it being the norm in other countries.

The question asked in the OP and the reasoning you use here are perfect examples of why CITH never should have been allowed to start with.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Absolutely not. The moment of adoration is just prior to receiving the host. We honor the Eucharistic Lord with a profound bow or going down on our knee(s). Once the host is placed in our hands, it MUST GO INTO THE MOUTH IMMEDIATELY.

I don’t encounter this sort of thing as I attend only the EF Mass. But I would think that Brother JR has the answer.

agreed

 

[livingwordunity]

Absolutely not. The moment of adoration is just prior to receiving the host. We honor the Eucharistic Lord with a profound bow or going down on our knee(s). Once the host is placed in our hands, it MUST GO INTO THE MOUTH IMMEDIATELY.

I agree. Doing extra things like kissing it adds to the risk of dropping the host.

Speaking for myself, I rarely choose to receive it in my hands. And now that my home parish is one that has an altar rail, I always receive the host on the tongue. Kissing the host before receiving (or doing other things like walking away without putting the host in the mouth ) is not even possible when receiving on the tongue. Just a thought.

 

[bben15]

Jesus is celibate. I don’t thinks he likes it if you kiss him against his will.

 

[otjm]

The problem with this is that it says that the work done from 200 AD to 1970 was basically wrong. So much so that we needed to rewrite the mass, change the altar, even drop the vestments and hymns. A rough analogy is when people find an antique and give it a good clean; they don’t realise they are destroying value.

The message of the Apostles is very clear. If anything, modern clergy are obscuring it by over-emphasing the Super over the Sacrifice and Mercy over Judgement.

His is the only ‘pro’ quote I’ve ever read about CITH from a saint. And that quote is suspect. It’s extraordinary to change to treating the Sacred Matter, Christ, this way, at a public mass, with lay people participating and no state oppression in place.

I’ve ignored the rest of your remarks.

The only people who seem to be questioning the authenticity of St. Cyril’s remarks are those who are ignorant of history and those who want it to be suspect.

But there is also Tertullian, “Ad uxor.”, II, v; Cyprian, “De lapsis”, xxvi; and Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46; and Justin, Apol., I, n. 67; as well as Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv; and Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii. Do a little research.

Of course, the arguments are that the Apostles were priests at the Last Supper (although others put their ordination, if you will, after the Resurrection). CITH was parallel with COTT and widely so, pretty much past 1000 AD.

The Church has approved it in spite of the fact that you don’t. I have no objection whatsoever to COTT; when (for 15+ years) I taught in RCIA, and was the one who taught the modes of reception, I always taught both ways, explained that in the US we have permission to receive CITH, that universally COTT is the norm and that CITH is allowed in a number of countries; gave a neutral short history of it, and told them it was entirely their choice. And to this day, several of them receive COTT. Unlike those who are anywhere from somewhat mildly to greatly against CITH, I follow the Church.

As to modern clergy emphasizing - part of that is personal experience. Part of that complaint also is personal prejudice, as before Vatican 2 that (the aspect of sacred meal) was downplayed so much as to almost not exist. I have met any number of priests who don’t downplay the sacrifice; and neither do they deny or try to hide what the Church in its teaching documents say - that the Eucharist is both sacrifice and sacred meal.

And again, I follow the Church.

Oh, and a further reference is to St Cyprian.

and of course, some of the Traditionalists will quote St. Basil; amusingly they leave out the rest of the text which says just the opposite of his supposed condemnation. I think the term for that is selective quoting; or more accurately, dishonesty.

And wasn’t it the Synod of Trullo that quoted St Cyril?

And we could also refer to St. John Damascus…

 

[QuestingKnight]

The only people who seem to be questioning the authenticity of St. Cyril’s remarks are those who are ignorant of history and those who want it to be suspect.

Here is the remark:

“Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.” “Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses” (Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21-22)

It’s the underlined parts which are prima facie questionable because they are bizarre behaviours. If one is using St. Cyril as a source of approval for CITH then one must allow that these other acts are also worthy of approval. If one thinks they are disrespectful, then CITH may also be questioned. The authorship of the entire text has also been questioned as not being written by St. Cyril at all.

But there is also Tertullian, “Ad uxor.”, II, v; Cyprian, “De lapsis”, xxvi; and Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46; and Justin, Apol., I, n. 67; as well as Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv; and Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii. Do a little research.

Of course, the arguments are that the Apostles were priests at the Last Supper (although others put their ordination, if you will, after the Resurrection). CITH was parallel with COTT and widely so, pretty much past 1000 AD.

…

Oh, and a further reference is to St Cyprian.

and of course, some of the Traditionalists will quote St. Basil; amusingly they leave out the rest of the text which says just the opposite of his supposed condemnation. I think the term for that is selective quoting; or more accurately, dishonesty.

And wasn’t it the Synod of Trullo that quoted St Cyril?

And we could also refer to St. John Damascus…

We could indeed, if you would provide the actual texts and their historical context e.g. whether CITH was only authorised during times of religious persecution or not. Or whether the CITH cited occured outside the Roman church, or not.

It remains astonishing that a Church should revert to this form of reception outside any pressing need to do so. “It was done in X AD, so let’s do it now” doesn’t make sense. Unless CITH is merely a fashion revival. But that would be trivial.

 

[GangGreen]

I personally see no logical benefit to receiving in the hand. Besides the fact that “everybody does it” and “I was taught that way,” I just don’t see what valid reason that someone would have for preferring that method. It introduces way too many variables that aren’t necessary.

COTT requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) placing it on your tongue and that’s it. It seems to be the simplest and least likely for any kind of abuse.

CITH requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) to place it on your hand (not consecrated) to then pick it up with your other hand while moving it around at your own will (while making sure not to drop it) and then placing it in your mouth (step two in the other method). What added benefit does this give?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I personally see no logical benefit to receiving in the hand. Besides the fact that “everybody does it” and “I was taught that way,” I just don’t see what valid reason that someone would have for preferring that method. It introduces way too many variables that aren’t necessary.

COTT requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) placing it on your tongue and that’s it. It seems to be the simplest and least likely for any kind of abuse.

CITH requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) to place it on your hand (not consecrated) to then pick it up with your other hand while moving it around at your own will (while making sure not to drop it) and then placing it in your mouth (step two in the other method). What added benefit does this give?

And what of deacons (whose hands are not consecrated) and who are still designated by the Church as Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion? The key issue surrounding CITH vs. COTT would not seem to be the status of the minister’s hands.

 

[agnes_therese]

I personally see no logical benefit to receiving in the hand. Besides the fact that “everybody does it” and “I was taught that way,” I just don’t see what valid reason that someone would have for preferring that method. It introduces way too many variables that aren’t necessary.

COTT requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) placing it on your tongue and that’s it. It seems to be the simplest and least likely for any kind of abuse.

CITH requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) to place it on your hand (not consecrated) to then pick it up with your other hand while moving it around at your own will (while making sure not to drop it) and then placing it in your mouth (step two in the other method). What added benefit does this give?

I personally see no logical benefit to re-hashing this over and over and over again. What is the point of continually saying, here on CAF, “the Church was wrong to allow this”, when you (plural) have no authority to change it?
It’s the Vatican you need to inform that you consider them to be in error.

 

[GangGreen]

I personally see no logical benefit to re-hashing this over and over and over again. What is the point of continually saying, here on CAF, “the Church was wrong to allow this”, when you (plural) have no authority to change it?
It’s the Vatican you need to inform that you consider them to be in error.

Where did I say the word wrong anywhere in my post? I’m just asking what the benefit is and why people prefer it over COTT.

 

[thistle]

I personally see no logical benefit to receiving in the hand. Besides the fact that “everybody does it” and “I was taught that way,” I just don’t see what valid reason that someone would have for preferring that method. It introduces way too many variables that aren’t necessary.

COTT requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) placing it on your tongue and that’s it. It seems to be the simplest and least likely for any kind of abuse.

CITH requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) to place it on your hand (not consecrated) to then pick it up with your other hand while moving it around at your own will (while making sure not to drop it) and then placing it in your mouth (step two in the other method). What added benefit does this give?

It really doesn’t matter what we think. The method of receiving Communion is a discipline and not a doctrine and the Church allows both. What is the point of endless arguments about this. Accept what the Church says and that is that both methods are valid and allowed.
We are all free to choose which of the two methods to receive we prefer. It is uncharitable to say that receiving by hand is not reverent and implying that everyone using that method is being disrespectful.

 

[QuestingKnight]

This is a forum. Debates occur on forums. CITH is part of an astonishing change in practice and texts in the Roman rite. People come on here either looking for answers to their questions or trying to give them.

 

[Timothysis]

COTT requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated)

Wrong. A priest is consecrated to offer the Mass; his hands are not separately consecrated to handle the Eucharist. As others have said, a deacon is the ordinary minister of communion and his hands are not consecrated, either. This argument falls flat.

Also, being on the tall side, it is quite unnerving to try and receive on the tongue when the person distributing is several inches shorter, so to prevent any mishaps, I receive in the hand. If there is an altar rail, then I receive on the tongue, but even this way has invited mishaps.

 

[GraceUnderFire]

That’s not supposed to be happening at the Vatican.

So that is a photo of Queen Sofia of Spain, a reigning queen so I’m sure this practive isn’t the norm. Although the queen shouldn’t get a special pass, as a monarch with the priviledge du blanc, I’m sure Pope Benedict wouldn’t have embarrassed the queen by refusing to give her the host as she bowed and stretched out her hands. He probably just went along with it.

 

[thistle]

This is a forum. Debates occur on forums. CITH is part of an astonishing change in practice and texts in the Roman rite. People come on here either looking for answers to their questions or trying to give them.

What about the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Distribution was by hand or was Jesus wrong to do that?

 

[otjm]

Here is the remark:

It’s the underlined parts which are prima facie questionable because they are bizarre behaviours. If one is using St. Cyril as a source of approval for CITH then one must allow that these other acts are also worthy of approval. If one thinks they are disrespectful, then CITH may also be questioned. The authorship of the entire text has also been questioned as not being written by St. Cyril at all.

The people who are questioning it are the conservatives to the arch conservatives, and it suits their purpose to question it. As noted, those who question it ignore the other writers; it is as if they could disprove the authenticity of St Cyril’s statement, then all else would disintegrate because no one else supported it. That however, is not factually the truth.

What is bizarre is not St Cyril’s statements,or the behaviors he speaks of but the reaction to them.

We could indeed, if you would provide the actual texts and their historical context e.g. whether CITH was only authorised during times of religious persecution or not. Or whether the CITH cited occured outside the Roman church, or not.

Historians have established that CITH continued in the Roman rite up to 1000 AD and I am not going to attempt to prove negatives. There is nothing in the history of the matter that would indicate that it was only in times of religious persecution. You can look up the texts if you wish. You have the citations. Those who have objected to it have engaged in less than honest critiques including eliding statements from quotes that are diametrically opposed to their position; they have stretched facts to the breaking point, and no one is going to convince them otherwise because this is not an intellectual matter; it is an emotional matter. They are strongly emotionally opposed to CITH and the facts simply don’t matter.

It remains astonishing that a Church should revert to this form of reception outside any pressing need to do so. “It was done in X AD, so let’s do it now” doesn’t make sense. Unless CITH is merely a fashion revival. But that would be trivial.

To anyone who is actually acquainted with all the facts, it is not the least astonishing. It does not require a pressing need for the Church to change a discipline, and it never has. Limiting a statement to what you quote is not how the Church acts, so the statement is without merit. What comes through loud and clear is your refusal to admit that anyone can have a spiritually based reason for CITH and it is pointless to proivide one as you are not seeking answers; you are seeking termination of the method.

It is like ignoring the fact that the Franciscans have had permission to receive in the hand since the 1200’s. Perhaps you want to take them on in terms of their spirituality, but I don’t -and please don’t come back with some version of “they are not laity”; brothers may be professed but they are not ordained; and the majority of Franciscans are not ordained. If it fits their spirituality, then it can fit the spirituality of the laity.

 

[otjm]

I personally see no logical benefit to receiving in the hand. Besides the fact that “everybody does it” and “I was taught that way,” I just don’t see what valid reason that someone would have for preferring that method. It introduces way too many variables that aren’t necessary.

COTT requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) placing it on your tongue and that’s it. It seems to be the simplest and least likely for any kind of abuse.

CITH requires the priest (whose hands are consecrated) to place it on your hand (not consecrated) to then pick it up with your other hand while moving it around at your own will (while making sure not to drop it) and then placing it in your mouth (step two in the other method). What added benefit does this give?

People are careful to not drop something that is far less precious than the Host. That is simply a red herring.

Why do people prefer CITH? Among other reasons, that is how Christ distributed the Eucharist, and it is how (along with COTT, for whenever that started as a method of reception) to receive it. The Mass is both sacrifice and sacred meal, and that to many seems closer to the aspect of sacred meal as an adult would receive it than COTT. So there are three reasons. It also has a history of about 1700 to 1800 years of practice in the Church (and yes, the last 800 years up until it was approved for the laity was with the Franciscans).

It fits their spirituality; perhaps you could as Brother JR why that is so;; I would expect his answer to be not that far off the mark for laity.

 

[QuestingKnight]

What about the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Distribution was by hand or was Jesus wrong to do that?

• Ummm, well, it was Jesus, in person and attendees were the first Bishops.
• Ideas about what they actually did is based on conjecture and what an ordinary seder meal at the time was like. And this was not an ordinary seder meal.

Regardless, letting lay people, in 1990AD, stand up to receive into their hand is peculiar, considering that previously the host was thought so holy it was administered kneeling and on the tongue; as a sign of reverence, one assumes.

My opinion is it reduces the host symbolically to a sacramental. In which case, the actions attributed to St. Cyril makes more sense; you might kiss a scapular, for example. It’s what lay people might do if they don’t grasp the significance of the object.

This explains why people take the host away or put in in their wallet; they don’t understand what it is.

 

[QuestingKnight]

You can look up the texts if you wish. You have the citations.

I had a go. I can’t find the texts which will support your arguments. If you want to use them to back up your claims, quote the actual text.