Receivng Communion on your Hand

[Walking_Home]

Hey, the early Catholic Church practiced confession that way (publicly, I mean), so does that mean it was a cult back then? No, because forgiveness was the goal, was it not? What was being held over peoples heads?

---

What the “early” Church did is irrelevant since the Church grew out of “public” confessions. In our time --Yes–knowing a person’s innermost deeds can be used to create an environment of control.

 

[Ailina]

---

What the “early” Church did is irrelevant since the Church grew out of “public” confessions. In our time --Yes–knowing a person’s innermost deeds can be used to create an environment of control.

Well, I don’t know about irrelevancy, since so many seem to feel that the Church today should go back to other old ways. Unless we get to pick and choose, like the Cafeteria Catholics do? Good thing none of us are in control then, hey?!

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
What the “early” Church did is irrelevant since the Church grew out of “public” confessions. In our time --Yes–knowing a person’s innermost deeds can be used to create an environment of control.

---

Well that depends how “far” back. Some push for the antiquarian “early” Church supposed “model” of “sitting” around a “table” for communion—which would go hand in hand with the “public” form of confession. Since you mentioned Cafeteria Catholics --it reminds me of those who say --the Bible doesn’t mention that–in order to dispute Catholic teachings.

 

[Ceil-1]

When there is no paten placed under the chin, it is risky business. Most EMHC’s cannot handle it. It’s a real dilemma.

 

[Ailina]

---

Well that depends how “far” back. Some push for the antiquarian “early” Church supposed “model” of “sitting” around a “table” for communion—which would go hand in hand with the “public” form of confession. Since you mentioned Cafeteria Catholics --it reminds me of those who say --the Bible doesn’t mention that–in order to dispute Catholic teachings.

I’m not disputing anything, but am pointing out that arguments for one way or the other seem to be based very much on opinions of how the church today should be, not how it actually is. So I’m throwing my opinion out there, just like everyone else.

Since communion in the hand is accepted by today’s Church leaders (it’s cardinals, bishops, etc), who are we laity to say it is wrong? Unless, only the leaders in the West are wrong and misguided? In which case, what should we do about them?

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Well that depends how “far” back. Some push for the antiquarian “early” Church supposed “model” of “sitting” around a “table” for communion—which would go hand in hand with the “public” form of confession. Since you mentioned Cafeteria Catholics --it reminds me of those who say --the Bible doesn’t mention that–in order to dispute Catholic teachings.

quote=Ailina
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.

---

Your statement above—undermines Catholic teaching --that Christ is present in the crumbs and undermines the universal norm of communion via the tongue----since there is no “mention” etc. etc.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

In my parish the children are taught to receive on the tongue only by CCD, but their families can of course teach them to receive in the hand. We have a small percentage of folks who kneel to receive on the tongue, more than half (maybe 70%?) who receive on the tongue, and then the rest who receive in the hand. Of those who receive in the hand many are very reverant, but some do receive like the host is a snack chip.

The priests of my parish are reverant and all are very exact in their liturgies. The EMHCs, when used, are very well trained, but I do know that hosts have been dropped–even when someone receives on the tongue. The only way to avoid that is to use patens, which we don’t use. I have no idea why not.

 

[Ailina]

---

Your statement above—undermines Catholic teaching --that Christ is present in the crumbs and undermines the universal norm of communion via the tongue----since there is no “mention” etc. etc.

I am only repeating what I have read here in these forums for why things should be done one way or another. I am undermining nothing. Communion in the hand is acceptable in this part of the world, according to the Church leaders here (and presumably in Rome. I’m pretty sure that when Pope John Paul II came, people didn’t suddenly stop taking communion in the hand while he was here). Who am I to tell my Bishop or Cardinal that he is wrong in allowing communion in the hand?

 

[Ceil-1]

Uh, in Asia they receive in one hand and pop it in the mouth. I don’t know if they’re supposed to, but…

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Your statement above—undermines Catholic teaching --that Christ is present in the crumbs and undermines the universal norm of communion via the tongue----since there is no “mention” etc. etc.

---

As per your statement which has been quoted ----you went beyond the issue of the acceptability of communion in the hand.

 

[Geremia]

Is there a church teaching on this?

Read “Communion in the Hand” and “Communion Posture.”

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?

I know Mother Teresa said: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” Others have made similar statements.

 

[Ailina]

Read “Communion in the Hand” and “Communion Posture.”
I know Mother Teresa said: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” Others have made similar statements.

Why would the tongue be any better or cleaner than the hand? It is still part of the person receiving communion; none of us are worthy, no matter what body part we present, except by the grace of God.

People weren’t so passive in reaching out to Jesus back in His day. It seems to me that the people who boldly physically reached out, rather than doing nothing, were the ones that Jesus helped. So why not reach out at communion?

 

[diggerdomer]

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?

As you’re in PA, either method of receiving communion is fine. No one can be denied communion because they prefer to receive in their hand or on the tongue. Both methods are fine.

 

[Geremia]

Why would the tongue be any better or cleaner than the hand? It is still part of the person receiving communion; none of us are worthy, no matter what body part we present, except by the grace of God.

Only a priest’s consecrated hands can touch the ciborium, chalice, and host. At least that is the way it used to be before lay people started assuming priestly roles.

People weren’t so passive in reaching out to Jesus back in His day. It seems to me that the people who boldly physically reached out, rather than doing nothing, were the ones that Jesus helped. So why not reach out at communion?

In John 20:17 Jesus said to Mary Magdalen: “Do not touch me.” Then there is Matthew 9:20: “If I shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed.” I am pretty sure there is no mention of hugging Jesus, and if so, it probably would have been just among His apostles.

 

[RyanML]

Ailina,

No one said that there were not irreverences and sacrileges in the past and no one said that receiving in the hand was wrong or sinful. What I am saying and I think what other posters are saying is that communion kneeling and on the tongue is the prefered practice in the Roman Rite. The Pope is making this quite clear by his own practice and it has been reiterated by other officials in Rome.

Communion in the hand began after the Council out of disobedience but the Vatican eventually gave in and gave an indult for it. It’s become so common and widespread that it might cause more harm than good if the Pope were to come out tomorrow and immediately ban communion in the hand. But it’s apparant by his example that he would like to see the traditional practice restored as the norm. I hope and pray it will but I know these things take time.

For the past 40 years, many in the Church have tried to conform the Church to the world rather than call the world to conversion and conform to Christ. The world has become so secular and the sacred has become so foreign that we need these traditional practices to remind us of our purpose in this world and that our true home is in eternity.

 

[Layman]

I wonder what benefit CITH has over COTT, that it should have been introduced? I see none. I have read that it affects belief in the Real Presence and I think that is so.

Personally, I am, by turns, bored, annoyed, amused and sorrowful at the amount and variety of experimentation in the Latin Rite. The TLM is a great relief.

 

[diggerdomer]

I wonder what benefit CITH has over COTT, that it should have been introduced? I see none. I have read that it affects belief in the Real Presence and I think that is so.

Personally, I am, by turns, bored, annoyed, amused and sorrowful at the amount and variety of experimentation in the Latin Rite. The TLM is a great relief.

One benefit, for some, is that it’s the more ancient practice and similar to what Christ and the Apostles did at the Last Supper.

But again, either method is fine.

 

[Layman]

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.

 

[James_Miller]

Nobody wanted Communion in the hand. It was foisted upon the lay people by an amazing series of preposterous arguments: I laughed as I read a new one “you sin more with your tongue than your hand”. Another was “if you are unhappy being that close to Jesus you will be very unhappy in heaven”. Or " a drop of saliva on the priest’s hands might give you HIV." anybody have any others?
In principle the Syro-Malabar Church might allow it but the priest gives out Communion by intinction so it is obviated. The Syro-Malankara Church does not allow it.
A baby is given a single drop of the Precious Blood from a gold spoon.

 

[Tsuwano]

---

Your are right—the Catholics would not agree.

You seem to be suggesting that all those who disagree with your position regarding receiving communion in the hand are not Catholic. Not only is such a suggestion false, it is uncharitable. Indeed, it is a slander against fellow Catholics who strive for holiness as much as you do.