Poll: How do you typically receive the Body of Christ?

[Titivillus]

Communion in the hand is an indult i.e. an allowance to break canon law.

Why did the US want an indult to break canon law?

Which canon?

 

[Titivillus]

Communion in the hand is not an indult and has not been for decades.

Of course it is an indult.

 

[Horton]

I am afraid non-priests will drop the host when trying to put it in my mouth.

As an EMHC, I find it easier to administer the host on the tongue as long as the communicant knows how to receive that way. I was surprised by this, thing just the opposite would be true. The only time it was dropped was when I was trying to place it in the hand and the guy moved his hands quickly, the host fell out of his hand.

 

[Titivillus]

but a priest or deacon on their own can’t prohibit it.

I think a priest can do so on his own authority, but few if any actually do so.

Distribution by intinction is always and everywhere permitted, but few if any priests will impose it because it denies the opportunity to receive in the hand.

Read that again: An always and everywhere option is avoided for the sake of an indulged option.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

In the hands, left over right. I’m personally very uncomfortable putting out my tongue for someone to place the host on it so I’m very glad we have this option. I feel like if it werent reverent, Jesus would have had the apostles put out their tongues at the last supper.

 

[hope]

It depends on which parish. If I am in my home parish, I kneel and receive on the tongue. If I am elsewhere, I receive by hand left over right. I don’t understand why this would be controversial. I find it interesting. My home parish purchased kneelers. Most do not use them. It is nice that those who do want the option has it. My parish priest encourages the kneeling and out of respect for him I do but I really prefer it in the hand.

 

[s.cono]

I receive on my knees on the tongue at one church, and in hand at another, making me a switch hitter, I suppose. When I receive in hand, sometimes it’s right hand over left, other times left hand over right. I’m fickle, that way. I remind myself of that commercial “there’s no wrong way to eat a Reese’s”.

 

[otjm]

An indult does not “break Canon law”. It is a specific addition to Canon law which does not require re-writing the Code, and while it can be revoked, as long as the indult is maintained, it is a legitimate variance to the law - not a “breaking” of it.

 

[otjm]

What desecrates the Eucharist is the tongue, as it is the source of much evil. And your bit about the use of a cloth is less than substantiated as to the practice. No one uses a cloth, and the Church does not even suggest one.

If you do not wish to receive in the hand, that is perfectly fine, and no one has the right to challenge your spirituality. By the same token, you have no right to challenge someone else’s spirituality, nor to make presumptions that they are less reverent than you.

Furthermore, each time I have received the Sacrament of th Sick, my hands have been anointed.

 

[Bushum]

Please read the discussion as we have already been over this. An indult is an allowance to not follow a particular canon law. Perhaps break was the wrong word but it does not really change the meaning. There is a law, many people were abusing that law, the pope relaxed that law. Semantics aside that’s what happened.

 

[paperwight]

There is a law, many people were abusing that law, the pope relaxed that law. Semantics aside that’s what happened.

I can’t help thinking that if the Pope didn’t approve, he’d have put his foot down and forbidden the practice, regardless of how many people were already doing it.

Could it even have been the case that the Pope saw merit in the practice? Now there’s a thought…

 

[Bushum]

No need to speculate. Read the well documented account of the indult and how the voting took place and who agreed with whom.

 

[otjm]

Actually, it does change the meaning. And Canon lawyers have disagreed over whether or not the law was abused, and since I am not a Canon lawyer and I doubt you are either, I will leave it to them to continue to debate if they see fit.

Further, you are equating the indult with a continuing “abuse”, albeit sub rosa. It is not an abuse; it is an accepted practice which goes back to the early Church and extends for a number of centuries.

Again, I have no problem whatsoever if a person’s spirituality leads them one way of the other; but I maintain neither you nor I have any right to question their spirituality.

And by the way, I assist in teaching RCIA, and I always end up teaching how to receive Communion; I present both means, I give an extremely short overview of their history, and I always tell them it is up to them, and that no one - and I stress no one - has a right to tell them their choice and their spirituality is either wrong, or that one is “better” than the other.

You are most certainly welcome to prefer one over the other. You have no right whatsoever to tell anyone else one is better than the other. You are not anyone’s spiritual director. It isn’t about semantics; it is the law. And given that others far better educated than you or I have debated the point you wish to make, arguing over it’s implementation into law bears absolutely no relevance on an individual’s practice and choice.

I am perfectly fine with you liking one over the other. I am absolutely not fine with even an implication that one is less reverent, or borders on abuse, or is only there because (whatever argument those against CITH wish to make).

 

[Bushum]

First please stop arguing against a straw man. Not once did I even mention the word spirituality or reverence. I said communion in the hand is an indult. That is a fact not an opinion.

Second I have every right to have an opinion that one is better than the other. As you say, we are not each other’s spiritual adviser so you should agree to this point if you want to be consistent.

I am absolutely not fine with even an implication that one is less reverent, or borders on abuse,

With all due respect, what you are and are not fine with is not my concern and is irrelevant to me. You are not the arbiter of all things Catholic. We can have our own opinions. This is a discussion forum after all and as you say, it is still being debated by canon lawyers and theologians.

 

[Titivillus]

First please stop arguing against a straw man. Not once did I even mention the word spirituality or reverence

No, but you have repeatedly referred to Canon Law. I repeat: To which Canon(s) do you refer?
Hint
I Am Not A Canon Lawyer, but I am pretty sure Canon Law is silent on the modes of receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Kima]

I can´t recall not receiving on the tounge. I believe it´s more reverent to receive our Lord in that way. Also, my hands aren´t consecrated so I don´t think I´m supposed to touch the Sacred Host with my hands.

As for now, I´m not feeling well (having the gastric flu) - so if I make it to Sunday Mass - I will (for the sake of hygiene only) receive in my hands.

 

[Titivillus]

I know. That was my point.

(Along with the implication that when someone forms an argument poorly, it makes me think that person knows not of which he speaks, and is less than supportive of the argument)

 

[Bushum]

Ok. Canon law allows for a dispensation which is a relaxation of ecclesiastical law. The first argument was that I used the word “break” instead of “relax”. Now your argument is that I used “canon” instead of “ecclesiastical”. Is this the lesson for a proper argument? Pick out one word that is not thoroughly explained and dwell on it even though you know the context and the actual intent? This is intellectually dishonest. If that’s how you choose to debate then I’ll leave that to you. The bottom line is that I am right. Communion in the hand was being abused and therefore a dispensation was granted to make it licit. So it looks like I do know of that which I speak after all. Now if you are done being passive aggressive we can move on.

 

[Titivillus]

Now your argument is that I used “canon” instead of “ecclesiastical”.

I am not arguing with you*. But I do contend that when you use the wrong words it makes it seem like you don’t know what you are talking about, and you are unlikely to persuade anyone to your point of view.

But if you don’t care to persuade anyone, carry on being imprecise.

Is this the lesson for a proper argument? Pick out one word that is not thoroughly explained and dwell on it even though you know the context and the actual intent? This is intellectually dishonest. If that’s how you choose to debate then I’ll leave that to you.

Yes, it is a lesson for a proper argument. If you intellectually honestly trust your interlocutors to infer what you mean when you don’t say what you mean: Good luck to you.
*
In fact, I support the assertion that Communion in the Hand continues to be an indult, right here.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I do not feel worthy to touch the Body of Christ with my hand, and I have always had this fear of mishandling the Chalice and spilling the Precious Blood. Those are the reasons, I accept on my tongue with folded hands.

St Cyril of Jeruselum in mid 300 AD described receiving in the hand the way we do it today as to make a “throne to receive the King”.

I hope we don’t go back to receiving on the tongue in my lifetime because we are so aware of how transfer of saliva communicates germs and disease. When only a few people choose to do it, it seems benign but I would struggle knowing that I’m receiving the transfer of the whole congregations saliva.