on the tongue or in the hand?

[misericordie]

Guy:

I receive Jesus generally in the hand. This tradition actually goes back to around 350 AD with the catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. It is he who teaches us to make a throne with one hand for the hand which receives the King. I have no problem with receiving Jesus in the hand as long as it is done reverently and properly.

You are historically correct here as per St. Cyril. However, to use the commen argument that, “that’s the way it was done in the start” is like saying that once we are adults and mature, we should go back to being children.
The Church matured much after St. Cyril, and learned more as time went by, then came liturgical abuses towards the host, etc, then came the greatest theologian of all time and the only one Vatican II recomended, The Angelic Doctor: St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas then explains in The Summa Theologica III, Q.82. Art.13m That, "nothing but the consecrated hands of a priest are to touch this holy sacrament(Holy Communion). Aquinas’ teachings and the wisdom of the Church then re-affirmed this in the Dogmatic and everlasting Council of Trent.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Actually, St. Cyril stated that hand Communion was permitted only in times of persecution. Here is a list of dates and declarations on hand Communion:

St. Sixtus I (circa 115): *“The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.” *
Pope St. Eutychian (275-283): Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461): Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained*.* (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

“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*.*” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

 

[pnewton]

TradCatholic,

A lot of quotes, but so what? Communion in hand is permitted today in the US. It is how I receive and how most receive in my parish. Communion is distributed very reverentially.

 

[deogratias]

Misericordae

That, "nothing but the consecrated hands of a priest are to touch this holy sacrament(Holy Communion). Aquinas’ teachings and the wisdom of the Church then re-affirmed this in the Dogmatic and everlasting Council of Trent

Trad-Catholic
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Trad and Misericordae,

Then would it be fair to say that

1. You do not agree with Communion in the hand even by Indult?
2. You do not believe the changes made in Vatican II where Deacons, Acolytes and even Lay persons may distribute Holy Communion?
3. That what the Popes of old decreed takes precedence over what the more recent Popes decree?

 

[dmh]

I receive Our Lord on my tongue. It’s the way I was taught before I made my first Holy Communion (back in the late 60’s). I’ve received Him once in my hand. I feel that people are more reverent receiving on their tongue. I see people just “popping” Him in their mouths like a piece of candy or something, instead of reverently placing Him in their mouths.

 

[Guy]

dmh:

I receive Our Lord on my tongue. It’s the way I was taught before I made my first Holy Communion (back in the late 60’s). I’ve received Him once in my hand. I feel that people are more reverent receiving on their tongue. I see people just “popping” Him in their mouths like a piece of candy or something, instead of reverently placing Him in their mouths.

It saddens me, too, to see people pop the Host in their mouth as if It were an M & M or potato chip. This is where proper catechesis is needed to teach:

a) The true nature of the eucharistic species.
b) How to receive communion in a reverent manner, either on the tongue, or in the hand as taught by St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

I think in our diocese the implementation of the new GIRM will help because we are taught that we should bow before receiving the Host, and bow again before receiving the Precious Blood.

 

[misericordie]

pnewton:

TradCatholic,

A lot of quotes, but so what? Communion in hand is permitted today in the US. It is how I receive and how most receive in my parish. Communion is distributed very reverentially.

“but so what”. This is exactly the opinion of those who are causing so much liturgical abuse in the Church. Yup, they just, don’t care if Our Lord is treated reverently, or much less if supporting documentation as per desecrated hosts, or hosts which are stolen from parishes, then sold to satanic sects, as is happening even more in Italy. In my previous parish here in Manhattan, New York City, a parish of the Archdiocese of New York, back in March 2004 a woman recieved Communion in the hand, then walked towards the pew still with the Host in her hand, and as many as 30 people saw her stuff it in her pocket, until a parish council member told the Pastor (who was distributing). The Pastor(a brave and couragous priest who is concerned about saving souls, not careerism or to be politically correct) and who is 54 years old(the Pastor) a Priest of the Archdiocese of New York(secular-diocesan priest) stopped distributing, called the woman to come to him, and when she walked out of the pew to the Pastor, he told her to give the Communion she had in her pocket back to him, and when she pulled it out of her pocket(profanation according to Canon Law) the Pastor knelt in front of everyone in the parish, as she had the host in her hand, then he removed the Hosts gently from her hand, and consumed the Host himself, then just went back to distributing Communion as if nothing happened, he did not dwell on this, he said nothing, but his brave actions spoke tons.
Well, many faithful catholics do care.

 

[misericordie]

Trad_Catholic:

Actually, St. Cyril stated that hand Communion was permitted only in times of persecution. Here is a list of dates and declarations on hand Communion:

St. Sixtus I (circa 115): *“The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.” *

**

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283): Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461): Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained*.* (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

“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*.*” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Thank you for putting all of beutiful catholic truth here. I for one thank you, and I am sure mosts here love truth and are not concerned with what they FEEL is nice and comfortable, but with reverence. Hence, I am sure most catholics are humble, and would not respond, with a “so what” attitude. There are many of us who still do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[misericordie]

deogratias:

Misericordae

Trad and Misericordae,

Then would it be fair to say that

1. You do not agree with Communion in the hand even by Indult?
2. You do not believe the changes made in Vatican II where Deacons, Acolytes and even Lay persons may distribute Holy Communion?
3. That what the Popes of old decreed takes precedence over what the more recent Popes decree?

Well, to be honest with you, what I think in reference to the beutiful and CATHOLIC qults Trad. posted here is not important. On the other hand, the historical and true quolts he posted here, and the sayings of these holy men(Aquinas etc.) and the DOGMATIC Council of Trent, are worth more than my opinion. Green is green, and blue is blue, and no matter what the opinion of someone may say if they feel green is really yellow, the truth will not change: green is still green.
Hence, catholicism was not just discovered with Vatican II (oh yes, I do accept Vatican II’s DOCUMENTS, not what some wish it said but is not in reality in the 16 Documents) nor with the USA Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholicism goes back almost 2000 years, to Peter the Apostle. And yes, the saying of Theologian SAINTS does carry weight, even today, after Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

“but so what”. This is exactly the opinion of those who are causing so much liturgical abuse in the Church. Yup, they just, don’t care if Our Lord is treated reverently, or much less if supporting documentation as per desecrated hosts, or hosts which are stolen from parishes, then sold to satanic sects, as is happening even more in Italy.

This is a classic straw man arguement. No one can argue with all the horrors you portrayed, but that is not what I said “so what” to.

I did not want anyone to read the myriad of quotes and think they were receiving Jesus “wrong.”

Receiving communion in the hand is fine, as is receiving on the tongue. Both most be done with reverence and without trafficing with Satanic sects.

 

[Brian_Crane]

deogratias:

Then would it be fair to say that

1. You do not agree with Communion in the hand even by Indult?

Communion in the hand is licit, but I pray that people will choose to receive on the tongue. I would like to see the indult rescinded, and I think it may be in the next decade or so.

deogratias:

1. You do not believe the changes made in Vatican II where Deacons, Acolytes and even Lay persons may distribute Holy Communion?

Extraordinary Ministers should be extraordinary. This has been much abused. If lay persons or acolytes never again distributed communion, I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

deogratias:

1. That what the Popes of old decreed takes precedence over what the more recent Popes decree?

They don’t take precedence, but in this case, their decrees along with previous councils and Church Doctors show a consistent pattern of thought and tradition. Again, communion in the hand is licit, I’m not saying it isn’t, but its acceptance defied many centuries of church teaching on how to distribute and receive communion. Communion on the tongue was taught and favored by the aforementioned popes, councils, doctors of the church, and other saints and blesseds including the most recent: Saint Padre Pio and Mother Teresa. Communion in the hand is not favored by any Popes (including Paul VI and John Paul II), nor any Councils or saints or blesseds that I know of. As Trad stated, I don’t think even Saint Cyril, favored it. If someone can state otherwise, I will stand corrected.

 

[misericordie]

Brian Crane:

Communion in the hand is licit, but I pray that people will choose to receive on the tongue. I would like to see the indult rescinded, and I think it may be in the next decade or so.

Extraordinary Ministers should be extraordinary. This has been much abused. If lay persons or acolytes never again distributed communion, I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

They don’t take precedence, but in this case, their decrees along with previous councils and Church Doctors show a consistent pattern of thought and tradition. Again, communion in the hand is licit, I’m not saying it isn’t, but its acceptance defied many centuries of church teaching on how to distribute and receive communion. Communion on the tongue was taught and favored by the aforementioned popes, councils, doctors of the church, and other saints and blesseds including the most recent: Saint Padre Pio and Mother Teresa. Communion in the hand is not favored by any Popes (including Paul VI and John Paul II), nor any Councils or saints or blesseds that I know of. As Trad stated, I don’t think even Saint Cyril, favored it. If someone can state otherwise, I will stand corrected.

Yes, I agree with you. Also, hopefully in the future the so called Communion in the hand indult will be revoked. In the meantime, you can also write a letter(you have the canonical right to make your concerns known to the Vatican) to your Bishop, AND the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments(they are the ones who deal with issues of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments, especially Eucharist). The prefect(leader) of the afformentioned Congregation is Cardinal Francis Arinze’.

 

[RRitzel]

I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Receiving in the hand is fine when done with reverence, but sadly, there is a lot of irreverence shown by a great many communicants.

There is a very real danger of evil people wanting to desecrate the Host. Unfortunately, giving Holy Communion in the hand makes it easier for these evil people to obtain a consecrated host. A priest friend of mine told me of an experience when he had to ask someone to consume the Host or return it to him. The person became very abusive. The priest asked the person to open their hand and the person then purposely and deliberately crushed the Sacred Host in front of him.

It saddens me that Our dear Lord, who suffered so much and endured so many insults, is still being insulted and disrespected in the Blessed Sacrament. I pray that all people will come to know Him, love Him and serve Him with the dignity and respect due to Him alone.

May the peace of Christ be with each one of us.

 

[misericordie]

RRitzel:

I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Receiving in the hand is fine when done with reverence, but sadly, there is a lot of irreverence shown by a great many communicants.

There is a very real danger of evil people wanting to desecrate the Host. Unfortunately, giving Holy Communion in the hand makes it easier for these evil people to obtain a consecrated host. A priest friend of mine told me of an experience when he had to ask someone to consume the Host or return it to him. The person became very abusive. The priest asked the person to open their hand and the person then purposely and deliberately crushed the Sacred Host in front of him.

It saddens me that Our dear Lord, who suffered so much and endured so many insults, is still being insulted and disrespected in the Blessed Sacrament. I pray that all people will come to know Him, love Him and serve Him with the dignity and respect due to Him alone.

May the peace of Christ be with each one of us.

Amen, I agree!!!

 

[kepha1]

I’m inclined to receive in the hand. I can’t imagine Jesus giving His Body and Blood to the Apostles on the tongue. I don’t think the Jews ate their Pascal Meal that way. “Take this and eat it…” means to 1) take and 2) eat.

On the flip side, I am considering reverting to ‘on the tongue’, from the priest, but in the hand from a EMof HC. To me, on the tongue from a EM is redundant.

And I think children should receive on the tongue, and give them the option after Comfirmation, for the simple fact that so many of them show no respect.

What I would really like to see is a poll of priests, to see what their preference is in distribution. Do they ever get slobbered on?

In the end, profound adoration of the Blessed Sacrament doesn’t come from the hand or the mouth.

kepha1

 

[misericordie]

kepha1:

I’m inclined to receive in the hand. I can’t imagine Jesus giving His Body and Blood to the Apostles on the tongue. I don’t think the Jews ate their Pascal Meal that way. “Take this and eat it…” means to 1) take and 2) eat.

On the flip side, I am considering reverting to ‘on the tongue’, from the priest, but in the hand from a EMof HC. To me, on the tongue from a EM is redundant.

And I think children should receive on the tongue, and give them the option after Comfirmation, for the simple fact that so many of them show no respect.

What I would really like to see is a poll of priests, to see what their preference is in distribution. Do they ever get slobbered on?

In the end, profound adoration of the Blessed Sacrament doesn’t come from the hand or the mouth.

kepha1

Two points here: (1). Jesus Christ had NO need to give Communion to His Apostles on the tongue because His Apostles at that point were already priests. Furthermore, they were trained by Christ Himself. After all they were with Him for three years. Hence, they were given the RIGHT to touch the Eucharistic bread with their priestly consecrated hands. Laity today however, do not have the priestly consecrated hands. The fact that the Apostles were priests is one of the reasons the Bishops, Cardinals etc. are called the “successers of the Apostles.”
(2). As per not wanting to recieve Communion on the tongue when the one distributing is an EXTRAORDINARY minister of the Eucharist, the solution for me is simple in that case: I only recieve communion from the hands of a priest or in second category, a deacon. Maybe from a nun in full habit too. However, I NEVER get on the line of an EXTRAORDINARY minister of the Eucharist is distributing if at the same time a priest is distributing, I don’t care how long the priest’s line is, and when I do, I recieve on the tongue only. If a priest refuses to give me Communion on the tongue, I will not recieve, and of course I will then seek a friend Canon Lawyer(Church Lawyer) and I will pursue that the priests either publically in Mass apologizes to me in the next main Mass, or, I and my Canon Lawyer, will seek from the Bishop canonical penalties against that priest, besides taking the case all the way to the Holy See itself and they will further decide what will happen.
Many blessings, and know that I post here in all sincerity, aware of my Canonical rights as a baptized and Confirmed Catholic, using the rights Mother Church Herself provides and dictates here.

 

[deogratias]

=misericordie]Two points here: (1). Jesus Christ had NO need to give Communion to His Apostles on the tongue because His Apostles at that point were already priests.

Nice try

Actually it was like this according to the Catholic Enclylopedia See The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament:

In ancient Christian times it was customary for the faithful to take the Blessed Sacrament to their homes and Communicate privately, a practice (Tertullian, Ad uxor., II, v), to which, even as late as the fourth century, St. Basil makes reference (Ep. xciii, ad Cæsariam). Up to the ninth century, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host in the right hand of the recipient, who kissed it and then transferred it to his own mouth; women, from the fourth century onward, were required in this ceremony to have a cloth wrapped about their right hand.

(2). As per not wanting to recieve Communion on the tongue when the one distributing is an EXTRAORDINARY minister of the Eucharist,

Only Priests and Bishops are Ministers of the Eucharist - there are no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. Probably you mean Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

QUOTE]

 

[misericordie]

deogratias:

Nice try

Actually it was like this according to the Catholic Enclylopedia See The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament:

(2). As per not wanting to recieve Communion on the tongue when the one distributing is an EXTRAORDINARY minister of the Eucharist,

Only Priests and Bishops are Ministers of the Eucharist - there are no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. Probably you mean Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

QUOTE]

Though this is pretty history of the Early Church, the Encyclopedia fails to mention abuses which arose later. Hence, Saint Thomas Aquinas’ satement that nothing but the consecrated hands of a priest is to touch “this Holy Sacrament.” Furthermore, the article fails to mention what the teachings of the Council of Trent were regarding the Most Holy Sacrament, and dobts and abuses towards this Sacrament which were happening before the Council(Trent). Trent by the way everyone is not “old fashioned, and the way things were.” The Council of Trent’s documents are actually cited on different topics, by the NEW Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[deogratias]

Whoa - it is not just pretty history -it is as it was. Then it changed for whatever reasons.

My point was that there indeed was communion in the hand in the early Christian Church because that was how it was done.

You and everyone on this forum knows I prefer the normative way of receiving and that is on the tongue. But it would demonstrate ignorance on my part to deny that at one time that was not the norm either.

We can’t pick and choose what we want to believe about church history of belittle it by calling it “pretty history”.

When it was changed it was for good reason(s) and I don’t even need to know those reasons (though I do) because I believe that Mother Church had the right to change it.

 

[pnewton]

misericordie:

Though this is pretty history of the Early Church, the Encyclopedia fails to mention abuses which arose later. Hence, Saint Thomas Aquinas’ satement that nothing but the consecrated hands of a priest is to touch “this Holy Sacrament.” .

Then how would on ever receive, since one’s tongue must touch the host to receive on the tongue.