Receivng Communion on your Hand

[justin_sp]

The council of Rouen in the 8th or 9th century forbade communion in the hand by the laity.While there may be evidence of CITH in the early church,that doesnt mean we should revert back to a practice out of use for over 1000 years.What is the point?To put us in line with our “seperated brethern”?It is amazing and kind of scary how the changes in the mass coincide with the changes the reformers in the 16th made to it.They took CITH to deny the true presence.

 

[Joannm]

Ja…I’ve seen this argument given as the reason why communion on the tongue is “better” - it is very simple to check for and resectfuly handle any particles that may remain on your hand.

If there are particles of the host breaking off all the time at your church, then perhaps it is time to look for a new distributer of hosts. Ours are basically crumbless. Even after a ciborium is emptied after distribution we find very few crumbs. One of our priest, for reasons unknown to us, likes to use his own hosts, he buys them himself from a different distrubuter…and yes they make more crumbs than the ones we buy, but he only uses that host for himeself and does not share it with anyone else…which, I believcer (i need to check) goes against the GIRM but he doesn’t seen to care what the GIRM says because he “knows better.” Still, he uses hosts that make crumbs and the rest of the priest do not.

 

[estesbob]

It seems that you relate the discipline of receiving the Eucharist in your hand to the dogma concerning the Ressurection & the Real Presence. ODD, indeed.

COTT fans have told me than CITH ranks right up there with Arianism. Seems like the Church has fallen into iretrievable apostacy-whats nex-Female Altar Girls? Holding hands at the Our Father?

 

[Ockham]

I don’t remember seeing a question in the post I quoted. Usually questions end in a question mark.

Re-read post #319. Or, read it for the first time.

 

[truevaticanii]

Ja…I’ve seen this argument given as the reason why communion on the tongue is “better” - it is very simple to check for and resectfuly handle any particles that may remain on your hand.

Um, be honest with me madam, is there a way to do such a thing? Do you respectfully LICK your hand to make sure that each particle is consumed?!

 

[Ockham]

My whole point is that if these Catholics want to use an option that is available to them, you, me, nor anyone else should challenge or question their wanting to do so.

Why not? I’m not passing judgement on those receiving the Blessed Sacrament standing and in hand, but we are free to discuss the practices of our Church. How do you think the GIRM changed in the first place? Do you honestly believe there wasn’t discussion prior? Why do you ‘standers in hand’ seem so adverse to discussing this subject?

 

[almightyservant]

Has anyone offered any reason for COTH other than that it’s allowed? I don’t think it has been answered. If it has, please direct me to that post. This thread is waaay too long.

In my opinion, one of the strongest reasons against COTH has been that it is unnecessary “handling” of the the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of our Lord. Something or Someone most sacred, most holy, and precious should not deserve any unnecessary handling. He is more precious than gold and diamonds. The less people handling, the better. I imagine how gold is handled in places like Ft. Knox, or how diamonds are handled and by whom from the excavation sites. I understand that the care taken to avoid any unnecessary contact in the scenarios I give are because they do not want any gold or diamond lost. The same is true with the Host. We ought not do anything unnecessary to lose any particle of the Host.

 

[Ockham]

And perhaps if people did kneel for Communion… a Protestant might walk into the Church and see these people on their knees to receive this “piece of bread” and wonder what is going on… they would later discover why they were on their knees… because that was NOT bread… that IS JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD, AND OUR GOD! If Jesus Christ came before you right now would you not fall to your face? would you not at least kneel? would you not crawl to Him and kiss His Holy feet? If you would not, then perhaps you should read about St. Mary Magdalene.

Pax Domini tecum.

A most beautiful post worth repeating.

 

[Ockham]

Has anyone offered any reason for COTH other than that it’s allowed? I don’t think it has been answered. If it has, please direct me to that post. This thread is waaay too long

Not yet.

Oh, there’s a quote from a third century saint about making your hand a throne for the King, however it’s been disputed by saints, popes, theologians and others ever since. And compared to the volume of saints, popes, theologians speaking against CITH you’d think people would take the hint by now.

So, until this current generation of bishops on the USCCB retire or go to their reward, we are left with the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes in the GIRM. Hopefully this period of liturgical chaos will eventually become a footnote in the history of our Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

So, until this current generation of bishops on the USCCB retire or go to their reward, we are left with the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes in the GIRM. Hopefully this period of liturgical chaos will eventually become a footnote in the history of our Church.

Communion in the hand was approved by the Vatican, not the USCCB.

 

[truevaticanii]

I may not have understood what you meant…but the words you chose to use were indeed harsh and insulting. And in the post to which you refer me, you again talk about grabbing.

WHAT? I can’t comment about what happens where you are, but in both the churches I attend (in two different countries), we receive the Lord in our hands, step to one side and immediately place Him in our mouth. Should anyone do otherwise they would be reprimanded right there and then; at the smaller church the priests administer communion and they watch what yo do; at the huge one we have all 3 priests and 7 EMHC, (no chalice is offered here) each with a patten-holding assistant, both of whom check that no abuse takes place.

Indeed, you grab the host… grab is to take the host into your own hand/s… at least that is my definition… you are given the host in one hand and you grab/take the host with the other.

'step to one side and immediately place Him in our mouth." —actually you would be improperly doing so… you are supposed to receive Communion immediately in front of the priest that he may know that you received Holy Communion and you didn’t try to pop the Host in yoru pocket (as is practiced by satanists and such).

 

[truevaticanii]

When did the Church assign you the job of protecting the Eucharist. And who are you protecting the Eucharist from?

No, I am not charged with constructing the GIRM, but we should all want to protect the Eucharist… don’t you?

The Church assigns EVERYONE to protect the Eucharist… if you saw someone placing the Eucharist… you would be OBLIGATED to do SOMETHING.

…and I want the Eucharist protected from falling on the floor… through each tiny particle falling on the floor… and I want it protected from satanists who take the host from the church to desicrate it!

And if you would not want the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord to be protected, I would be shocked. I told this to a protestant friend, and he said that if the host really is the Body and Blood, then we should do everything we can to protect It, we should fall our knees to worship Our Lord, and we should do everything in our power to prevent the host from falling to the ground or from being desicrated… if a man who does not believe in the True Presense wants this done, why wouldn’t someone who believes in the True Presense want that done???

 

[Ockham]

Communion in the hand was approved by the Vatican, not the USCCB.

The universal norm of the Church is to receive Communion on the tongue. In the hand is an indult extended to certain countries under certain restrictions.

 

[almightyservant]

truevaticanii:

'step to one side and immediately place Him in our mouth." —actually you would be improperly doing so…** you are supposed to receive Communion immediately in front of the priest that he may know that you received Holy Communion **and you didn’t try to pop the Host in yoru pocket (as is practiced by satanists and such).

I think you are right. I just happened to catch that in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

 

[Ockham]

In most Novus Ordo Masses I attend, should I bother to observe the faithful receiving Communion, the vast majority do not bow, consume the host in front of the priest, make the sign of the Cross, or show any external form of reverence. It’s little wonder why belief in transubstantiation and Mass attendance has fallen so sharply since CITH was introduced in the seventies.

 

[Ockham]

The council of Rouen in the 8th or 9th century forbade communion in the hand by the laity.While there may be evidence of CITH in the early church,that doesnt mean we should revert back to a practice out of use for over 1000 years.What is the point?To put us in line with our “seperated brethern”?It is amazing and kind of scary how the changes in the mass coincide with the changes the reformers in the 16th made to it.They took CITH to deny the true presence.

Truly amazing. One wonders why the Progessives in this thread defend CITH so militantly. What is their motive?

 

[diggerdomer]

The universal norm of the Church is to receive Communion on the tongue. In the hand is an indult extended to certain countries under certain restrictions.

There’s only one norm in the United States.

 

[Ockham]

In countries where the indult (exeption) has been granted CITT cannont be denied. I wonder what happens in countries not succumbing to the indult where someone wishes to receive CITH. I wonder if that can be denied? Does anyone know?

On second thought, Pope Benedict XVI only distributes Holy Communion to those on their knees and on their tonges, so I guess that answers the question.

 

[diggerdomer]

In countries where the indult (exeption) has been granted CITT cannont be denied. I wonder what happens in countries not succumbing to the indult where someone wishes to receive CITH. I wonder if that can be denied? Does anyone know?

Of course it can. I there is no allowance for any other means than communion on the tongue, by Church law, then of course an individual does not have the right to demand something apart from Church law.

 

[Ockham]

So because CITH can be denied but CITT can’t I find it reasonable to conclude the Church’s preference is for reception of Holy Communion on the tongue. Why did this trend of CITH start up anyway? Hopefully we are close to the day the Holy Church returns to a truly universal norm and this recent trend goes away. After all, “catholic” is synonymus with “universal” and as we pray we believe. If we all believe in the Real Presence then we should be unified in our reverence and practice to receiving Holy Communion.