Receivng Communion on your Hand

[PJM]

=cuqui;5625087]My husband disagrees with me that I receive the Body of Christ on my hand while he says he is not worthy of holding Him and sticks out his tongue.
I am an extraordinary minister and better than 90 percent of the parishioners get it on their hand. I was not told by our pastor (nor does our parish enforce) that we should receive our Lord on our tongues only.
Is there a church teaching on this? When I was growing up, everyone got it on their tongues and everyone knelt in front of and around the altar (this was in the Philippines in the 60s and maybe 70s).
Any thoughts?

***You do not sin in doing so. However there clearly is a different Theology of “taking Jesus” into ones hand [are you, any of us worthy?] and “receiving” Jesus on ones tongue. We are not worthy of that either, but do so as instructed by Jesus Himself.

Certainly receiving is more pious than taking. And as an FYI, “receiving on the tongue” remains the international norm for the CC. Thus it is the ONLY way one may receive from Christ Vicar here on earth. ***

This practice of ORDINARY ministers of the Eucharist is a major factor in the huge decease in belief in the Real Presence, in Mass attendance down fro about 75% in 1970 to 23% today [PEW Report 2007], and is a major contributing factor in huge decline in the Priesthood. So if we judge the fruits of these activities, they are not good.

Love and prayers,

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Your are right—the Catholics would not agree.

---

Maybe — before you accused me of being “false, uncharitable, and of slander” —you should have taken time to actually see what it was in Ailina’s post I was addressing. I reproduced my post #5 below —quoting Ailina’s post #4. Notice the sentence in Ailina’s post that I highlight in red. Ailina’s defense of communion in the hand as it stands in her post #4 --is on not being “concerned” about the crumbs left or fall off —since “No mention of the Diciples possibly dropping bits of crumbs”. Now do you as a Catholic —agree or disagree —that the crumbs from our Lord’s Precious Body are of no consequence–since the crumbs were not mentioned at the Last Supper.

quote=Walking Home

Quote=Ailina
This is the way I look at it: At the original last supper, did Jesus break the bread, bless it, and then feed it to each Diciple individually? No, He broke the bread, GAVE it to his diciples and then said “This is my body, take it and eat it, all of you…” No mention of the Diciples possibly dropping bits of crumbs,

or having Jesus feed them as if they were infants.

I think taking it in the hand is fine for that reason. That is the way it was done in the early church. But not everyone in this forum will agree.​

Your are right—the Catholics would not agree.

 

[ricmat]

Funny, as I was browsing this thread, this “Catholic Quote” appeared on the upper right portion of my screen:

“Approaching, do not come with your palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making your left hand a seat for your right, and hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest you drop any of it.”

– Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, Saint; on the proper technique for receiving Holy Communion in the hand (circa A.D. 347).

I don’t know if the Quote thing is automated or not

 

[lawanda]

hi everyone I’m new here and thought I chime in on this one. being a cradle catholic I was taught to recieve it on my tongue, when my husband became catholic and my children went to first communion they were told to hold out thier hands. but I personally feel my hands will never be clean enough to touch even the hem of jesus robes let alone his body. so I recieve it on the tongue. but either way is o.k and acceptable. the hands of the priest is more holy than mine meaning he is appointed or anointed to do what he does i.g. bless the eurcharist ect. so from his hands directly into my mouth. someone said you sin more with your hands than with your tongue or vice versa, yes but you still have to put it on your tongue regardless.

so I just by pass the extra step, limit the chance of it dropping to the floor and any crumbs or even a speck of the body of christ remaining in my hands aware or unaware and recieve it directly on my tongue…but that is Just MY reason. everyone has different reasons for recieveing the way that they do and if it is o.k with the church its fine with me just as long as you recieve the body of christ. also it prevents people from carrying it away with them to the pews and disposing of it or doing anything improper with it. eventhough it must be consumed in front of the priest or minister.

 

[Layman]

Funny, as I was browsing this thread, this “Catholic Quote” appeared on the upper right portion of my screen:

“Approaching, do not come with your palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making your left hand a seat for your right, and hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest you drop any of it.”

– Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, Saint; on the proper technique for receiving Holy Communion in the hand (circa A.D. 347).

I don’t know if the Quote thing is automated or not

It’s automated and random. That is the quote justifying CITH. The reasoning is, because Cyril mandated it in his diocese it, we, in the Roman Church, can do it. Never mind 1600+ years of liturgical development since them; ‘back to Year 0!’

St. Cyril may not have known about COTT or
It may not have been practical then, or
COTT, kneeling might not have suited the local culture then e.g. kneeling has different connotations in the East., hence “The Orthodox don’t kneel, why should we?” argument.

I propose he did the best he could for his day. That he had to tell people to adopt a reverent posture and try not to drop crumbs says something.

 

[mick321]

As lay Catholics, we depend upon our priests, pastors and bishops to guide us toward salvation. At some point though, Catholics must accept some degree of responsibility for their own salvation. At the end of the day, we stand alone before God.

The Catholic clergy should be held to higher standards. Pastoral responsibilities should be taken seriously. Those so entrusted – from the Holy Father on down – should do everything within their power to preserve and defend the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church against every effort to degrade Its Sacraments or the practice thereof. Otherwise, things could get out of hand.

From there, it’s not such a stretch to imagine self-identified Catholics insisting on less reverence - not merely in their personal lives - but during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Ever since the evil one and his posse were ejected from heaven, they have prowled the earth seeking the corruption of souls. We should all pray for the wisdom to recognize evil - and the courage to oppose it – whatever form it takes.

To the original poster:
Those of us who know better are not free to take Holy Communion in the hand, regardless of who – under color of authority - say it’s OK.
.

 

[PJM]

Quote=Ailina
This is the way I look at it: At the original last supper, did Jesus break the bread, bless it, and then feed it to each Diciple individually? No, He broke the bread, GAVE it to his diciples and then said “This is my body, take it and eat it, all of you…” No mention of the Diciples possibly dropping bits of crumbs, or having Jesus feed them as if they were infants.

I think taking it in the hand is fine for that reason. That is the way it was done in the early church. But not everyone in this forum will agree.

***Astute observation but missing a vital point.

When Jesus broke and gave the “Sacred Bread” to His Apostles, He was giving it to Bishops not laity:thumbsup: HUGE difference. ***

 

[redroses098]

When Jesus broke and gave the “Sacred Bread” to His Apostles, He was giving it to Bishops not laity HUGE difference.

Yeah, and less than a day later they (except John) abandoned Him to death in terror. NOT a huge difference as they were all just as flawed and human as we are today.​

There is no difference in receiving by tongue or hand, as long as you believe in the Presence and are respectful. Honestly, people really need to let it go. Although I think sticking out your tongue at the priest to receive God is kinda gross…anyways…

 

[Tartini]

Communion in the hand is valid, it just lacks a certain level of reverence. Obviously, a personal definition of what is “reverent” seems to be the issue. It is an open sign of the attitude towards many things of the modern times we live in. Often, but not always, it is those who usually lack a full belief in the Real Presence wholly accept it as a norm. One should bear in mind that a sin is only committed in full knowledge of the act being sinful. I am aware of it only coming into effect after V2, but also that it was a practice of very early Christians. This seems to be the argument that is used most, and a great deal of New Mass practices seems to gear towards a more primitive attitude of worship. Tradition can too often self-interpretative to the point of rendering confusion throughout the whole Church.

In my wide travels and attendance at some New Masses, I have been brought to my knees (literally) as to the practices of some parishes that truly believe that what they are doing is right. Invincible ignorance is the only thing that seems to be the excuse that keep their parish close enough to the Catholic Church and just far enough away from being a protestant sect. There have been times when I had to double check to make sure that I was in a Catholic Church! This should never have to be done.

I would imagine there are good reasons why the Church does not regulate it today. The days of receiving Communion in the hand may be coming to an end, as new regulations are supposed to be instituted in the New Mass soon. The social experiment is slowly coming to an end, and the results are being tallied.

I would imagine that there are simply too many opinionated arguments (preferences) that could be presented in the matter of receiving on in the hand versus on the tongue. One does not have to be a Doctor of Divinity to know what is respectful and why one should not touch the host.

Common sense should play some part in this. It is as if the poison of protestant thought and liberalism has tainted the purity and sanctity of the Holy Mass. If that was their intentions, the enemy himself could not have devised a better plan of action.

Perhaps it would be better to use our hands to hold onto the reigns of error from devouring the true faithful of the Church. And while doing so, to use our tongues to warn them of the precipice that they are heading towards while they blindly dance and sing as if they were at a barn dance.

It would seem that our hands and our tongues could do a great deal of damage in many areas, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps we should consider using our heads first, and then allow reason to take over opinion or emotionalism.

I am blessed to be able to attend a TLM on a very regular basis, but I often see it done when I watch Mass on EWTN.

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t think that’s a benefit. That’s just history.

Fine. So you have your preference and I have mine. Neither is wrong.

If you go from COTT, kneeling to CITH, standing, you’re suggesting … what? We’re more holy now, or the host is less so, or you’re following a liturgical fashion? Not good connotations.

I wasn’t suggesting anything like that.

The liberal Catholic position seems to be: don’t be afraid of change, unless it’s change back, but then only of the kind we approve of: Year 1 to c. 500 = Good. Year 500 to c.1962 = Bad.

Maybe. I don’t know. Personally, I stick with the teaching of the Magisterium, some of which changes over time and some of which doesn’t

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think that’s a benefit. That’s just history.

*[My opinion:] *Can you imagine Jesus trying to introduce COTT, kneeling, in a hired room, at Passover, to the Apostles? Would have been a bit of a wrench, 'specially given what he knew was going to happen to Him the next day (which his Apostles did not, so it was even more poignant). It was his last meal with them; not really a time to introduce a further cultural oddity, given that what he was telling them was strange enough.

We have 2000 years twixt now and then. Makes no sense to dump all that; an efficient and reverent way to distribute the Body of Christ.

If you go from COTT, kneeling to CITH, standing, you’re suggesting … what? We’re more holy now, or the host is less so, or you’re following a liturgical fashion? Not good connotations.

The liberal Catholic position seems to be: don’t be afraid of change, unless it’s change back, but then only of the kind we approve of: Year 1 to c. 500 = Good. Year 500 to c.1962 = Bad.

Jesus just washed their feet and turned the Haggadah pretty much upside down. He could have done as He liked. Presumably, He did exactly what He wanted to do.

Remember, though…the first Mass had only bishops in attendance, and of course they can self-communicate. So that doesn’t help that much.

Having said that, when my archbishop tells me it is reverent to receive either in the hand or on the tongue, who am I to go around telling people not to do either one?

When I used to prepare children for their First Holy Communion, I taught them this: receiving in the hand is the most common way. You should know how to do it properly. Receiving in the hand is the only way that is always allowed and always your right. You should know how to do that, too. If you prefer it, realize that there are some ministers who are a little taken aback by it. Keep your mouth open and give them a few seconds, and they’ll see what to do.

I also tell them this: in the hand, you have to be very careful, make a throne for Jesus with your hands open very wide and held steady, and eat every bit. You MUST consume the host immediately, where the person administering can see you do it. When receiving on the tongue, you must keep your mouth open until the host is in all the way. No barely opening it and no snapping your mouth shut too fast. We don’t want any accidents, either way.

So why does this have to be so hard? Is there some rule against minding our own business? There aren’t enough things being done in this world that are objectively wrong, so we feel a need to speak out against those valid things that offend our personal sensibilities?

As for “don’t be afraid of change, unless it’s change back, but then only of the kind we approve of…” well, that sword cuts both ways, wouldn’t you say?

 

[franklinf]

Yeah, and less than a day later they (except John) abandoned Him to death in terror. NOT a huge difference as they were all just as flawed and human as we are today.​

There is no difference in receiving by tongue or hand, as long as you believe in the Presence and are respectful. Honestly, people really need to let it go. Although I think sticking out your tongue at the priest to receive God is kinda gross…anyways…

No big difference. Bishops consecrated, ordained. Laity not.

Sticking your tongue out…? Flippant way to describe how our Holy Father and hundreds upon hundreds of years of tradition has indicated the proper way to receive. I didn’t realize your hands were consecrated. Is it really reverent to receive God with your hand out like your accepting just any ole handout? To receive on the tongue is to completely humble ourselves before God. There’s a reason why the priest doesn’t separate his fingers after the consecration.

 

[franklinf]

Cardinal Cipriani:
“Let us recover that love to the Eucharist, by receiving Jesus with a clean body and soul, in God’s grace…We receive Holy Communion on the tongue. In that way we avoid using our dirty hands in contact with the Body of Christ…manifest that visible respect to the Body of Christ, and to not just hand It as if one was distributing some papers…"

wdtprs.com/blog/2009/08/card-cipriani-communion-on-the-tongue-kneeling-with-paten/

 

[James_Miller]

It is a big deal because the change was not introduced in a proper manner. No preparation and no adequate catechesis. It was done first in Holland because it had been introduced illegally. The Pope said he was against it but in Holland it was too late to turn back the practice. Slowly other countries followed one by one. There is no spiritual benefit. But it may be faster if priests and nuns run up and down the aisles distributing.

 

[nna]

Both my tongue and my pair of hands are parts of my body and senses, so I do not see why one sense should be regarded superior to the other.

 

[James_Miller]

Communion in the hand is just a fad.

 

[PJM]

=nna;5634700]Both my tongue and my pair of hands are parts of my body and senses, so I do not see why one sense should be regarded superior to the other.

***The Theology and level of piety is different.

In the hand “we TAKE Jesus”

In our mouths “we RECEIVE Jesus”

That friend is a profound difference if one understands the difference:shrug:

Love and prayers,***

 

[PJM]

=James Miller;5635377]Communion in the hand is just a fad.

**Dear Brother James,

No, its not a fad. It has been approved by Rome [albeit reluctently and forced] and receiveing Ones Lord and Savior, either way is good, so long as one is in the state of grace and is aware of who and what is being consumed. On the tohgue is more pious and remains the Ordianry way to receive Chrsit in the Universal Church and from Pope Benedict himself.

The fact that Ordinary ministers of the Eucharist are now ASSUMED to be the laity, takes away greatly from the Sacredness, the holiness of the Communion.

Love and prayers,**

 

[Joannm]

***The Theology and level of piety is different.

In the hand “we TAKE Jesus”

In our mouths “we RECEIVE Jesus”

That friend is a profound difference if one understands the difference:shrug:

Love and prayers,***

Did not Jesus say “take and eat…take and drink.” When we both take the host and the cup we are given it by another, we do not take it ourselves…so yes…we do receive it.

 

[PJM]

=Joannm;5635757]Did not Jesus say “take and eat…take and drink.” When we both take the host and the cup we are given it by another, we do not take it ourselves…so yes…we do receive it.

***Chrsit also said: “do this in menory of me.” Black is black and white is white. You know well what I mean:shrug:

Its you and your God, so pray and figure it out. I’m neither judge or jury.

Love and prayers,***