U
Uxor
Guest
I would be thrilled for you too and them.
- Status
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
There is no right or wrong way in receiving the Eucharist. It is only a matter of preference, and nothing more. Certain people have an almost superstitious view of what constitutes proper reverence or not with regards the manner of receiving the host since historically, communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church as St. Basil the Great says .
NO-ONE, ordained or not, has any sort of RIGHT to touch the sacred species at any time - nor to receive him, be it via hand or tongue! It is a gift of Christ’s grace that he allows us to do so.
While I agree that in a lot of circumstances EMHCs are overused, such does not diminish the nature of the Eucharist. Nor does reception in the hand.
You may feel more comfortable receiving on the tongue, and more power to you. I will cheerfully fight for your right to do so. Spare a thought for those like me who feel the total opposite to you. I received on the tongue as a child and felt extremely awkward and disrespectful, like I was poking out my tongue at the priest or at Christ himself or something.
U
Uxor
Guest
I don’t think it is a superstitious view, it is wanting to protect the Eucharist. When I hear of 100 hosts nailed to a wall in a dormatory, the host waded up in the missile, under the pew and desacrated in the bathroom, enough is enough. We should want to defend the Eucharist to our death. Didn’t our Lord suffer enough on the Cross?
Regarding the early Church I believe St. Basil is referring to times of persecution and the practice was ended afterwards.
D
Defensor_Fidei
Guest
U
Uxor
Guest
Yes I took a look at it, but I still think St. Basil is talking about in times of persecution, how I read it.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
This happens all the time. At least twice a month during Sunday Mass. I will be behind people who will go to Communion and then proceed to just walk out the side door.
:heart:Blyss
R
rflundy
Guest
is it possible that changeing to recieving in the hand more expedient with the large numbers of reciepients now. It also takes more ability and time to properly place the host on the ttongue than in the hand. I took the host in the hand until a stroke etc, I find it easier and less chance of accidents than trying to hold a cane , maintaining my balance while taking it un the hand.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
Very sad. Our Paster talks about having the Alter Servers follow the individuals out to their car with a lit candle because of the presence of Christ still within them. I say give me an alb and a candle. That would stop some of them. Take their photos and place them on the board.This happens all the time. At least twice a month during Sunday Mass. I will be behind people who will go to Communion and then proceed to just walk out the side door.
:heart:Blyss
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
First, your remark about 100 hosts being nailed to a wall in a dormitory is hardly an argument against communion in the hand, nor do I see it as relevant to the matter under discussion. Besides, hearsay is hardly an acceptable method of arguing for a certain position in any serious discussion.
I doubt if Basil said that in the context of persecution. The quote was from the year 378 A.D. several decades after the end of the Roman persecutions, and several years after the Arian controversy had practically ended. The quote is quite clear that communion in the hand is a valid practice.
In case it still isn’t clear, St. John Damascus in his likewise says something similar:
J
joeganshert
Guest
I was at my aunt and uncle’s Lutheran Church when I was a little boy, and they had communion in little shot glasses and paper plates! I suppose that they are similar to Catholics in terms of orthodoxy.
I was rather livid with my family this morning because of their obvious mis-understanding and un-reverence towards the Eucharist. First, my brother refused to fast for the mandatory one hour, and when I corrected him, he continued to eat and another family member stood up for him. He is fourteen, and this “other family member” said that eating was the lesser of two evils (compared to hunger
). I told him that that if he must eat, then the lesser of two evils was to abstain from communion. I didn’t. Then, my mother suggested that I become an EMHC, where I explained that I would never become one. Then they suggested that we use the paper plates and shot glassesAnyways, besides the ranting (which I apologize for), somebody said that the reason that communion was changed from mouth to hand was sanitation. Sanitation? Is that even close? I don’t know what to tell her
C
Chancellare
Guest
Again, at the risk of being repetitious, this debate could be less contentious if all have same levels of belief in doctrine of Real Presence.
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
No one here doubts the Real Presence, as it is a dogma which all Catholics are required to adhere to. I do however believe that it would be a little less contentious if everyone here would respect each others’ preferences.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
I suspect that the bolded statement needs some qualification. Firstly not all members of CA are Catholic. Secondly recent surveys in Australia have put belief in the Real Presence among Catholics at around 30% which would agree with surveys and polls done in the US. There is thus a real crisis in belief in the Real Presence as defined by Catholic dogma regardless of whether Catholics are required to adhere to it or not. Many will continue to call themselves Catholic and receive communion without accepting the true nature of the Sacrament. The small attendance at Adoration and Benediction is testimony to this.
My point is not that one can’t believe fully in the Real Presence and also receive it in the hand but that reception in the hand has weakened for many the sense of the miraculous such that they no longer regard it as being the true BODY, BLOOD SOUL and DIVINITY of Christ. I think it is disingenuous to claim that because I believe that the same will apply to others. As a server I have witnessed time and time again the casual way in which many Catholics treat the host when they take it in their hands. This is especially true of young people who do not yet possess the discernment to recognise Christ in the elements of bread and wine. Reception on the tongue, by being out of the ordinary helps to stress to those uninclined to theological speculation that this is something special and awesome.
Whenever this debate resurfaces I am reminded of the Baptist minister who said if Catholics truly believed what they say they believe they would be on their bellies crawling to the Lord. When you meet the Lord in His Glory will you step up and shake hands with him or will you follow the old hymn “every knee shall bow”.
The issue here is how should we treat Our Lord Truly Present in Body and Soul in the Eucharist. Are we truly prepared to acknowledge His Presence or is it all about us.
D
Defensor_Fidei
Guest
If you read my entire essay, you will see that your view that the practice ended after the persectutions is impossible. Also Rev McDonald has since written an appology and aknowledged that he did not check the sources he quoted.
D
Defensor_Fidei
Guest
It sounds outrageous, however, I can go down to the local Christian Bookstore and buy a box of hosts right now. Unless I had actual knowledge that those hosts came from a Catholic Mass, it’s just an un verified story.
Regarding wadded up hosts…the hosts around these parts snap crack and break, it sure would be a neat parlor trick to see how one might wad one up.
Last…as a 43 year old cradle Catholic, I have been many pews over the years and I still have not seen a discarded host. As for the bathroom…I generaly do not get up to use the bathroom in the church, I was nun trained and were were not aloowed to get up and walk around in church…heck I did not even realized there was a bathroom in the church until I was an adult.
[Edited by moderator]
U
Uxor
Guest
The 100 hosts nailed to the wall was reported on EWTN. I take their reporting crediable. I was a Committed Perpetual Adorer at my last parish, we also had break-ins. The last Mass I attended there was a girl who walked back carrying the Host in her hand. I immediately made the Mother have her daugther place the Host in her mouth. Afterwards the mother kept turning around giving me a dirty look. I could care less.
I was also trained by the Nuns too. This is not about walking around the Church or during Mass. I don’t even know what this has to do with this unless you think people who take Communion in the hand walk around the Church afterwards looking for descrated Hosts. LOL Also since you didn’t know the church had bathrooms, I say the Nuns probably had all the children line up and go to the bathroom before Mass, as our Sisters did. Did you attend Mass on Sunday? How could you avoid not seeing people coming in and out of the bathrooms in the vestible which are clearly marked.
There was story reported just two weeks ago, where members of a conregation stopped a man leaving the church who had placed the host in his pocket. The Priest also tried to strong hold the man. Now the man is considering or is suing the Church for physical harm.
[Edited by Moderator]
D
debok
Guest
Why is the tongue any holier than the hands?
And re: any ‘crumbs’ - technically, there would be crumbs from the priest - even if he keeps his fingers closed - SOME would fall out onto the floor - certainly Our Lord would flee such pieces before being stepped on.
So, again, why IS the tongue any holier?
And re: any ‘crumbs’ - technically, there would be crumbs from the priest - even if he keeps his fingers closed - SOME would fall out onto the floor - certainly Our Lord would flee such pieces before being stepped on.
So, again, why IS the tongue any holier?
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
Two points:
1. When I stated that no one doubts the Real Presence in this forum, I was specifically referring to the Catholic members of CAF,.who make up the vast majority of membership in the CAF, not the non-Catholic/non-Christian members. Besides, isn’t CAF a Catholic forum?
2. I’m not certain if reception in the hand, is in fact the “culprit” as to the supposed declining belief among Catholics in the Real Presence, since poor formation, poor catechesis and the pervasive influence of secularism may in fact be more significant factors for this problem. The fact that early medieval saints themselves accepted this practice makes me doubt that Communion in the Hand is in itself improper as some traditionalists here seem too eager to suggest.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
Firstly no method of reception can be holier then another as holiness applies not to actions but to things. What is important in our actions is our inward disposition when receiving. A person who truly discerns Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament and receives it in the hand with due respect and solemnity is being more faithful to the Sacrament then one who casually and unworthily takes it on the tongue as the done thing. That being said I would however make two points that I think are often lost in the heat that surrounds this debate.
First as I previously stated “reception in the hand has weakened for many the sense of the miraculous such that they no longer regard it as being the true BODY, BLOOD SOUL and DIVINITY of Christ. As a server I have witnessed time and time again the casual way in which many Catholics treat the host when they take it in their hands. This is especially true of young people who do not yet possess the discernment to recognise Christ in the elements of bread and wine. Reception on the tongue, by being out of the ordinary helps to stress to those uninclined to theological speculation that this is something special and awesome.” In other words that the Blessed Sacrament is “not of this world”.
Second I find that this debate is often perceived by those who choose to receive in the hand as a personal attack on their faith. This is an unfortunate result of the fact that the action is perceived by many who wish to return to reception on the tongue as reflecting an inward disposition which is uncharitable in the extreme. On the other hand those who receive in the hand counter with personal testimonies to their own reverence for the Sacrament ignoring the fact that large numbers of Sunday Catholics treat the Sacrament with a total lack of respect and for a majority according to several recent surveys belief in the Real Presence has been lost. I believe that Reception in the Hand has been a contributing factor to this loss of belief. A Protestant friend once asked me why we receive on the tongue when it is only bread and wine and I was able to explain that it was in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. While rejecting the belief he said he now understood the practice. To receive on the tongue is an outward sign of our inward reverence for the Real Presence. Reception in the hand lacks that outward sign and although it does not alter our inward disposition it fails to serve as a witness to others of that inward disposition. Reception on the tongue by its very uniqueness does serve to constantly remind us and others of the incredible gift of Christ’s Body to us as Catholics.
This is why the Communion Plate was (and in our parish still is) used. To prevent the dropping of crumbs by either Priest or communicant. And the bolded part of your statement reveals the very thing I have raised above, namely the lack of belief in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic Church. Our Lord does not flee or leave the Sacred Host at any point. The change is permanent and from the moment of consecration we must fully acknowledge in word and deed that change both to ourselves and in our witness to others.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
Unfortunately your exact words were “no-one here” without qualification so I can hardly be blamed for taking it to mean every member of CAF. Secondly I would even dispute that the statement refers to every Catholic member of CAF. I have been involved in several threads on this board where it is clear that some of our Catholic members are at the very least confused about the full teaching on the Real Presence. There are also several members who have argued for such things as gay marriage and birth control - all supposedly non-negotiable aspects of the Catholic faith. As for your average Catholic (and CAF members can hardly be called that) I do not believe any such blanket statement can be made. Saying that it is a required belief does not mean that every person who calls themselves Catholic or even every person who attends mass on Sundays automatically believes it.
I agree that reception in the hand is not the "culprit and that poor catechesis and poor formation are certainly major factors. However I also believe that reception in the hand along with such things as queueing for communion, hiding the Tabernacle etc (there are many others) leads to a minimising of the Sacrament which only serves to reinforce the poor catechesis and formation, especially among children. I would also agree with you that reception in the hand is not improper but I would argue that it terms of witness to our belief it is imprudent.
Finally I have a question for all those who argue in favour of reception in the hand - On what basis do you regard reception in the hand superior to reception on the tongue? I ask this in all seriousness for the following reasons
a) Although reception in the hand certainly existed in the very early Church reception on the tongue has been the norm in both Eastern and Western Churches for over 1500 years. Are you arguing that the older practice is intrinsically superior to the newer? In that case it appears that you are being reactionary to the point of absurdity. The fact that the Church through its Magisterium introduced the practice places it firmly in the realm of the ongoing revelation of Our Lord’s will through the Holy Spirit.
b) The Protestants deliberately introduced communion in the hand as a rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence. If reception in the hand is not to be sustained as a ‘return to the early church’ but as part of the ‘ongoing revelation’ referred to above in what way can we justify our belief as distinct from that of the Protestants who at the very least had a firm (if misguided) basis for their action? In other words their outward symbol did indeed reflect their inward reality. How does ours do this?
c) Finally the counter argument to reception on the tongue seems to be frequently framed as “my faith is as strong as yours”. If this is so how then do our outward actions reflect this inner faith for surely you would not just go up and shake Our Lord’s hand and say ‘hiya Jesus’. I doubt anyone would claim we are the equals of Our Lord. Many in the post VII era do however claim to be the equals of the Priest who once alone had the right to touch the Body of Christ. Is not reception in the hand then really a way of asserting our equality with the Priest - and therefore is about US and not about OUR LORD?
- Status