Pope Gives Communion in the Hand in Berlin

[Anathama_Sit]

They said that COTT was mandatory with the Pope so people won’t keep the Eucharist as a Papal souvenir. Perhaps heads of state can be trusted not to make the Eucharist a souvenir?

Greetings ConstantineTG,

That’s interesting. I figured there would be a very good reason of why this would be.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Dan_Daly]

The Pope can choose which way people receive from him. If I was ever lucky enough to receive from the Pope at a Mass, I would kneel and receive on the tongue like I do at EF Masses. I’ve only been to one parish that does the OF, and people actually go to the rail & kneel, and receive on the tongue. Most parishes it is simply too hard to kneel & receive on the tongue due to space limitations.

Space limitations is a poor argument for either method of receiving. While I love altar rails, one is not required to receive kneeling and on the tongue. All you have to do is…kneel and stick out your tongue. A person kneeling really doesn’t take up much more space than a person standing. With no rail, you can distribute communion in the same manner as commonly used with CITH, a line comes up to the Priest and the person in front simply receives kneeling instead of standing. No great amount of space required. It’s how I receive if I happen to be somewhere without a rail now.

Pax

 

[TrueLight]

Space limitations is a poor argument for either method of receiving. While I love altar rails, one is not required to receive kneeling and on the tongue. All you have to do is…kneel and stick out your tongue. A person kneeling really doesn’t take up much more space than a person standing. With no rail, you can distribute communion in the same manner as commonly used with CITH, a line comes up to the Priest and the person in front simply receives kneeling instead of standing. No great amount of space required. It’s how I receive if I happen to be somewhere without a rail now.

Pax

I have knelt on the floor before and it is extremely awkward. And if you’re not that tall, like I’m not, it is really awkward, LOL.

 

[GwenL]

The Pope can give communion any way it pleaseth him.

I do not believe that this is correct.

The Pope would respect the authority of the local bishops’ council.

In the U.S. and Western Europe, that means that CITH is allowed by indult and COTT is the norm. So the Pope can give communion by CITH or COTT.

But in Israel, for example, the Patriarch has not requested the indult. Everybody receives on the tongue, even visiting Americans. I was on pilgrimage with an American group, and we did so, no other option given. I think, in this kind of case, the Pope would respect his brother bishop and give communion only on the tongue.

 

[curlycool89]

In the U.S. and Western Europe, that means that CITH is allowed by indult and COTT is the norm. So the Pope can give communion by CITH or COTT.

Actually, you’ve got that a bit backwards.

By decree of the US Bishops, reception of communion in the hand while standing is the norm. It is the same in Canada. It’s in the GIRM.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Actually, you’ve got that a bit backwards.

By decree of the US Bishops, reception of communion in the hand while standing is the norm. It is the same in Canada. It’s in the GIRM.

The universal norm is to receive communion on the tongue. The Holy See allows bishops conferences to petition for an indult to allow communion in the hand, which the US Conference did.

 

[Mike30]

Actually, you’ve got that a bit backwards.

By decree of the US Bishops, reception of communion in the hand while standing is the norm. It is the same in Canada. It’s in the GIRM.

Actually while standing is indeed the norm in the United States, no mention is made of receiving in the hand also being the norm.

 

[vera_dicere]

I always used to take it in the hand, because that’s how I was raised and that’s what I was exposed to, I did occassionally see more elderly and pias individuals take it on the tongue, but it wasn’t common.

Then when overseas, I took a ride on the London subway to get to Church, and my hands felt absolutely disgusting, no way I was going to let Christ sit in that!! Ever since then I’ve taken it on the tongue, and I get quite a few odd looks from the extra-ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

I think we need more education of teh faithful that while its okay to take it on the hand, its best on the tongue.

 

[paperwight66]

It’s a matter of opinion, surely.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I have knelt on the floor before and it is extremely awkward. And if you’re not that tall, like I’m not, it is really awkward, LOL.

But as you said the issue was akwardness, not space. I’m fully aware some people have a harder time getting up and down. That is a legitimate argument (to get a communion rail ) but it’s not an issue of space.

Pax Christi

 

[Brendan]

Actually, you’ve got that a bit backwards.

By decree of the US Bishops, reception of communion in the hand while standing is the norm. It is the same in Canada. It’s in the GIRM.

Communion recieved on the tounge is normative everywhere, weither standing or not.

Communion in recieved in the hand ( weither standing or kneeling) is by indult requested by the local bishops conference.

 

[Brendan]

Actually while standing is indeed the norm in the United States, no mention is made of receiving in the hand also being the norm.

That is actually no longer true. A Norm is standing unless the recepient wishes to kneel.

That is a subtle, but important distinction from saying that the Norm is standing, which would mean that kneeling is somehow an indult.

The Norm itself is inclusive of kneeling

 

[Mike30]

That is actually no longer true. A Norm is standing unless the recepient wishes to kneel.

That is a subtle, but important distinction from saying that the Norm is standing, which would mean that kneeling is somehow an indult.

The Norm itself is inclusive of kneeling

I was unaware until today that they now had a revised version of the GIRM 160. For some inexplicable reason, that particular tidbit has never really gained the state of common knowledge,

How surprising.

 

[petrel]

After the first Consecration there is no indication that Communion in the hand is wrong, so the Pope is doing nothing wrong.

“After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Luke 17-20

Nor is there any rule in Matthew 26
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”**
Communion in the hand is a sacred tradition which is equally the Word of God. There is also the account in the gospels where at the same event Jesus places the sop directly into the mouth of Judas. So we cannot be certain from the scriptural account that all twelve did not receive in the tongue. I heard somewhere that this was the custom for the host to give the first morsel of food to each of the guests on the tongue. John 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Also the Latin for ‘Take’ is accipite en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accipite which means accept or receive. Which of course is the same sense that our word “Take” can have.
“to get into one’s hold or possession by voluntary action:”
So by voluntary action we take/accept/receive the bread onto our tongue.

 

[SKWill]

I believe it happened due to the man’s habitual manner of receiving, and he forgot at that moment to open his mouth and stick out his tongue. He probably meant to, since he was was given the privilege of receiving from Benedict XVI and was instructed in advance that the Holy Father administers Communion only on the tongue. The Pope would not want to embarrass him or make a scene by insisting that he receive on the tongue. The suggestion that it was a pre-planned incident is preposterous. The man was flustered and simply forgot. He’s made news all over the world, I’m sure to his regret.

I also a’m sure that’s all it was. I know a few months ago the Queen of Spain, who has recieved communion from the Pope many times, recieved standing and in the Hand; there is no reason to believe that was anything but a momentary lapse in concentration on her part. I receive on the tongue and one time at a big Mass I lost attention to how I held my hands in prayer when it was my turn to recieve. It took the Bishop a few seconds to figure out whether I intended to recieve COTT or CITH

 

[petrel]

I also a’m sure that’s all it was. I know a few months ago the Queen of Spain, who has recieved communion from the Pope many times, recieved standing and in the Hand; there is no reason to believe that was anything but a momentary lapse in concentration on her part. I receive on the tongue and one time at a big Mass I lost attention to how I held my hands in prayer when it was my turn to recieve. It took the Bishop a few seconds to figure out whether I intended to recieve COTT or CITH

Such confusion. All of which could have been avoided if the Bishops did not grant indults for CITH which the laity never asked for in the first place.

 

[paperwight66]

Maybe the laity didn’t ask for it - I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. But it can’t be denied that the laity have embraced CITH overwhelmingly.

There are still a very small number in our parish (and everywhere else I’ve been in the world) who receive COTT, so it can’t be said that the rest don’t know it is possible. But the vast majority plainly prefer CITH, even though a good proportion were taught only COTT because they made their First Communion before the custom changed.

 

[curlycool89]

Actually while standing is indeed the norm in the United States, no mention is made of receiving in the hand also being the norm.

I stand corrected after re-looking it up. That’s what I get for trying to remember and answer quickly.

Although, this is also an interesting tidbit in #161

If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

My interpretation of this would be that where the Bishop has allowed CITH, it is the choice of the communicant whether to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

Just something interesting for those who think pastors should go about not allowing CITH. It seems that if the Bishop has decided then they are obligated to respect the choice each communicant makes (except for provisions such as “in case of fear of sacrilege against the Body of Christ”, but that might have just applied to forbidding communion outright, I can’t recall).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Greetings ConstantineTG,

That’s interesting. I figured there would be a very good reason of why this would be.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I don’t know, I’m guessing here but I guess heads of state would be less “starstruck” by the Pope and not treat the Eucharist as something sort of a souvenir. They probably received a legitimate souvenir from the Pope anyway during the visit.

 

[Mike30]

I stand corrected after re-looking it up. That’s what I get for trying to remember and answer quickly.

Although, this is also an interesting tidbit in #161

My interpretation of this would be that where the Bishop has allowed CITH, it is the choice of the communicant whether to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

Just something interesting for those who think pastors should go about not allowing CITH. It seems that if the Bishop has decided then they are obligated to respect the choice each communicant makes (except for provisions such as “in case of fear of sacrilege against the Body of Christ”, but that might have just applied to forbidding communion outright, I can’t recall).

I think that is what almost everyone has been saying. Where CITH is allowed it is the choice of the communicant as to how he or she receives. There is no requirement. Where CITH is not allowed the communicant has no choice.

COTT is allowed everywhere.