Receivng Communion on your Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter cuqui
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
our church has always offered both the body and the blood and we never waviered from that in the years since our church was built. i have been attending there for 20 years and both have always been offered. I never heard of it the precious blood not being offered so that is news to me. and its sad to me as well, they should both be offered all the time. so for those who can’t consume the body for what ever medical reason can drink from the cup instead and vice versa. we always offered both.
 
Tigg said:
I would like to interject something that I don’t believe has been addressed. Prior to our current move, we lived in the southwest and were fortunate to have a traditional parish. Our pastor encouraged communion on the tongue as a sign of reverence and humility but there was an even more important reason. A couple of times consecrated hosts had been found on the floor by the janitors. It was assumed children not of age to make their first communion yet, had held out their hand in imitation of what they had seen. (Wherever were the parents?) After these were found, our pastor voiced his very real fear that there was a much greater chance of intentional defilement and/or sacrilege when communion was given in the hand.

I was convicted in my spirit long before he spoke of this, though, to only receive on the tongue. I’m not sure how this happened……it simply became very uncomfortable for me to receive in the hand.

And something else you may want to consider in these current times – the WHO has issued a pandemic of swine flu infection! At the Sign of Peace aren’t germs transferred from your hand to your mouth via our Lord’s Precious Body when you receive in the hand? And haven’t some parishes discontinued distribution of the Precious Blood for this reason?
Click to expand...
how big was your parish? do you have Knights of Columbus? bigger parishes would have members of the KoC that would stand and watch near the priest to make sure that the Host was taken properly

i was at St. Patrick’s in New York a few years ago and someone took the host away, perhaps a non-Catholic who wanted a souvenir of his trip to the New York landmark. good thing the priest was paying attention and chased down the man and asked him to either take the Host or give it back (i presume as i couldn’t hear their conversation)
 
Layman said:
I would’ve thought that giving reasons would be simple, given all the debate about this practice on this forum and elsewhere.

I don’t think I’m obliged to wade through internet sites and long technical documents to try to find spiritual or didactic benefits a Bishop might cite to justify changing a Roman Catholic diocese to this practice. I’m not sure I’d find any. It could be a waste of time.

If no one here knows, fair enough.
To: NCJohn. If you’re referring to the link about Vatican II in my signature, it’s on the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales’ web site. You should email them about the errors you say they have. They are an important and, as far as I know, well-regarded lay Catholic organisation and have the co-operation of the some of the hierarchy in the UK. I doubt they’d knowingly print errors.
Click to expand...
There’s been plenty of reasons and justifications given in this thread, but you don’t seem to accept any of them. I would submit that’s more a reflection of your own firmly held beliefs than any shortfalls in the Church’s explanation for allowing CITH.

The simple fact is that the Church has authorized it. Period. End of debate. There’s no requirement for you to understand it before you accept it. It is not a matter of doctrine or dogma, but of discipline, which is totally under the purview of the Church to change as she sees fit.

You’ve been offered lots of commentary and resource, including documentation I provided that shows the practice was approved in 1969 and endorsed by Pope Paul VI. I don’t pretend to know all the reasons why they approved of the practice of CITH, but they did. If I really wanted to know why, I would make the effort to understand and research it on my own.

Frankly, you are obliged to wade through whatever you need to in order to understand why the Church does what it does, particularly if it is causing you such trouble. As it stands now, you have staked out a spiritual position that conflicts with Church teaching and appear to be ready to defend it against all who challenge you. I would suggest you change your perspective. If you are in conflict with approved practices of the Church, I would suggest that your position, by definition, is on weaker spiritual and theological ground.
 
choy said:
how big was your parish? do you have Knights of Columbus? bigger parishes would have members of the KoC that would stand and watch near the priest to make sure that the Host was taken properly

i was at St. Patrick’s in New York a few years ago and someone took the host away, perhaps a non-Catholic who wanted a souvenir of his trip to the New York landmark. good thing the priest was paying attention and chased down the man and asked him to either take the Host or give it back (i presume as i couldn’t hear their conversation)
Click to expand...
The parish was huge (5,000 registered families) and the pastor did utilize the K of C as much as possible. But given the large numbers coming up for Communion at every Mass there would be no possible way to monitor every communicant.
 
Layman said:
I would’ve thought that giving reasons would be simple, given all the debate about this practice on this forum and elsewhere.

I don’t think I’m obliged to wade through internet sites and long technical documents to try to find spiritual or didactic benefits a Bishop might cite to justify changing a Roman Catholic diocese to this practice. I’m not sure I’d find any. It could be a waste of time.

If no one here knows, fair enough.
To: NCJohn. If you’re referring to the link about Vatican II in my signature, it’s on the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales’ web site. You should email them about the errors you say they have. They are an important and, as far as I know, well-regarded lay Catholic organisation and have the co-operation of the some of the hierarchy in the UK. I doubt they’d knowingly print errors.
Click to expand...
**I am a firm believer that if one wants to make reference to a link the least they might do is provide the link in question to the theme of discussion and at least give an abbreviated quote to which the poster is referring.
If someone provides simply a link I usually ignore it if they do not at least give me reason or a direct relation to that to which I am to address.

Diane**
 
Layman said:
I would’ve thought that giving reasons would be simple, given all the debate about this practice on this forum and elsewhere.

I don’t think I’m obliged to wade through internet sites and long technical documents to try to find spiritual or didactic benefits a Bishop might cite to justify changing a Roman Catholic diocese to this practice. I’m not sure I’d find any. It could be a waste of time.

If no one here knows, fair enough.
My bishop here in Maine stated he wanted everyone to receive in the hand, though you won’t be turned away if you receive on the tongue. I think everyone should do things the way the Pope does.
Click to expand...
 
diggerdomer said:
No, as I said, I meant the Preamble.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry, my mistake.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf

Well, I read it, but I don’t see where it mentions the spiritual or practical benefits of changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman.

It does mention a phrase I’ve read before: “the royal priesthood of the faithful”. Might that be it? We’re all priests in some way, so we can now handle the host?

“The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.”

usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml

[My emphasis, above.] I really don’t see why they would determine that that should be the norm for the US. How can it be an improvement over kneeling?

One day, figuratively speaking, you’re kneeling at the altar rail as your forefathers have done, the next you’re standing up to receive Communion from Mrs. Flaherty.
 
Layman said:
Ah, sorry, my mistake.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf

Well, I read it, but I don’t see where it mentions the spiritual or practical benefits of changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman.

It does mention a phrase I’ve read before: “the royal priesthood of the faithful”. Might that be it? We’re all priests in some way, so we can now handle the host?

"The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions."

usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml

[My emphasis, above.] I really don’t see why they would determine that that should be the norm for the US. How can it be an improvement over kneeling?

One day, figuratively speaking, you’re kneeling at the altar rail as your forefathers have done, the next you’re standing up to receive Communion from Mrs. Flaherty.
Click to expand...
How is your failure to see what the collective decision of the US Catholic Bishops a problem for anyone but yourself? Maybe you should write to someone or actually make the effort to “wade through” some material to understand something that seems to be such a source of conflict for you.

As for your summary of the change from “kneeling at the altar rail as your forefathers have done, the next you’re standing up to receive Communion from Mrs. Flaherty,” well you seem to miss the point. It’s the same Eucharist our “forefathers” received.

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the method of distributing communion is a discipline, not a doctrine or dogma, nor something that comes under the heading of Sacred Tradition.

That you don’t care for the current practice is clear. What’s not clear is why you think your personal preference should trump that of the collective wisdom of the UCSSB, the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, and 4 Pontiffs who have either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the practice.
 
Layman said:
Ah, sorry, my mistake.

One day, figuratively speaking, you’re kneeling at the altar rail as your forefathers have done, the next you’re standing up to receive Communion from Mrs. Flaherty.
Click to expand...
Call me over-sensitive on behalf of my women friends and Irish neighbours, but is there not a whiff of misogyny and sneering in this comment?

Why single out the name Mrs. Flaherty as opposed to Mr. Smith, say? Unless you are saying that there is a hierarchy in your opinion of those from whom you would accept HC, and a lay-woman, who moreover is Irish, is about the lowest you can imagine?
 
hey paperwieght, please don’t look for more trouble. this argument has gone on long enough.😦
 
I mentioned ‘Mrs. Flaherty’ to highlight the oddness and mundanity of this practice compared to what was done previously, for hundreds of years. I was born and raised in Ireland.

**Previously: No unvested laymen in the sanctuary. No women. No laymen spoke from the sanctuary.

Now: Anyone can go in there, in street clothes. With the altar rails gone, there’s no physical barrier, either.

Result: One more visible sign of the sacredness, the set-apart nature of the rite, gone.
**
I have yet to hear any spiritual or practical benefits of changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to this practice. The following are not reasons:
  1. The Hierarchy approves it (it’s OK because it’s approved i.e. it’s approved because it’s approved);
  2. Internal disposition is more important than outer posture (Not a reason. How will changing to CITH, standing, help internal reverence, anyway?)
  3. It was done in other sites and/or a long time ago. (So a R.C. parish should drop COTT, now, because of that?)
**I think the reasons for this and other changes to the rite were academic and intellectual; we’ll do it because we’ve read about it in our history books and to diminish clericalism and Romanism in the rite. Also to encourage lay participation.

Those things are tertiary to the rite.** A Mass can even be said if there are no laymen present; its prime purpose is to propitiate God.

If you believe in the Real Presence of your God in the Host, why would you go from the humble, reverent and vulnerable posture of COTT, kneeling, from a priest to queueing up, standing and having a laywoman put it into your hand?
 
Layman; said:
why
Click to expand...

would you go from the humble, reverent and vulnerable posture of COTT, kneeling, from a priest to queueing up, standing and having a laywoman put it into your hand?

Well, a short answer would be that belief in the Real Presence doesn’t need to be bolstered by a physical posture.

I don’t need to be on my knees with my tongue out to believe in the Real Presence. I believe in It 24/7, and moreover, like all Catholics who take their faith seriously, strive to be ‘humble, reverent and vulnerable’ all the time, not just when receiving Holy Communion.

The Real Presence is not dependent on a particular arrangement of limbs, and It is not dependent on who administers It. If a laywoman puts It in my hand, is it any the less? When I was trained to be an EMHC, we were told to think of ourselves as the Christmas
donkey. The method by which He is given to the faithful is irrelevant. He is not lessened by it, nor is He increased by the priest’s hands.

Like everyone else. I say ‘My Lord and my God’ at the Elevation, and make Acts of Adoration and Faith while waiting to receive. How I then put my arms and legs is superfluous. God already knows the state of my heart and soul, He does not need to see me on my knees - as if merely kneeling is adequate, anyway. Nothing we can do with our bodies is adequate.

If you need to be on your knees to remind yourself of the Real Presence, I’m glad it helps you. But don’t kid yourself that by doing so, you are automatically making yourself more pleasing to God. And if it’s to show others how they should be doing likewise to show their belief in the Real Presence is as great as yours, God help you.
 
Layman said:
If you believe in the Real Presence of your God in the Host, why would you go from the humble, reverent and vulnerable posture of COTT, kneeling, from a priest to queueing up, standing and having a laywoman put it into your hand?
Click to expand...
Because our blessed, sacred, and spirit-guided Church has said it is a valid, licit, and otherwise approved practice for the US and other locations around the world. That’s good enough for me, but I don’t claim to know better than the Pope, the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, the collective knowledge of the USCCB, or our local Archbishop. There are two questions you have studiously ignored in this whole thread
  1. Why do you refuse to accept what the Church herself has approved?
  2. Your reasons and preferences are certainly clear, but on what authority do you base your conclusions if you don’t accept what the Church has determined to be okay? Are you smarter than 4 Popes, his staff, and dozens of Bishops?
I don’t suppose my points will have any impact or that my questions will be given much reflection.

Layman, I truly respect your devotion to the Eucharist and your desire for sacredness in the Church, but it pains me to see your rejection of what the Church says is okay. It’s really no better than those of the “liberal” mindset who want the Church to justify it’s teachings on the ordination of women and the prohibition against birth control. The reasons are all out there and well documented, but if you refuse to accept them then you’ll never understand no matter how many times you ask the question.
 
Ailina said:
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.
Click to expand...
We are not a sola scriptura faith (I’m referring to what I underlined above).

Also, I am unlearned so remind me if I am wrong, but I thought only the twelve were present at the Last Supper.

We are sheep, priests are shepherds. It is fitting that we eat from a shepherds hand. Also, by kneeling, we kneel before the Lord.

I wonder why some think that we ought to prostrate oneself before the Eucharist during Benediction or Adoration or genuflect before the tabernacle, but not kneel before the Lord when receiving the Him. Or maybe these same people think that we ought to not prostrate ourselves during Benediction of the Eucharist as well?
 
Ailina said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Apostles were also priests (Bishops for that matter) and we’re not talking about priests touching the Eucharist.
 
almightyservant said:
We are not a sola scriptura faith (I’m referring to what I underlined above).

I wonder why some think that we ought to prostrate oneself before the Eucharist during Benediction or Adoration or genuflect before the tabernacle, but not kneel before the Lord when receiving the Him. Or maybe these same people think that we ought to not prostrate ourselves during Benediction of the Eucharist as well?
Click to expand...
This puzzles me. Did you really mean to write ‘prostrate oneself’? I’ve never seen that happen at Benediction. The only time I’ve seen prostration was during an Ordination.

What country are you in?
 
Here is the response our deacon made (Archdiocese of Phila.):

"THIS IS A FEELING AND EMOTION THAT IS A HOLD OVER FROM THE VERY OLD DAYS, ABOUT 1880 – ABOUT 1969, AND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. IT WAS GENERATED BY A CLIMATE IN THE CHURCH. THAT WE HUMANS ARE A SINFUL AND UNWORTHY PEOPLE. WHILE THIS IS SOMEWHAT ACCURATE, IT CARRIES WITH IT A VERY NEGATIVE PHILOSPHY AND EMOTION.

However many of the Popes, starting with Leo X111 started to adjust and modify this negative climate when he instructed and changed the age for children to be able to receive Our Lord at the age of reason, i.e. 7 years. Now, as you know, the church has never been in a hurry to make changes. So therefore it took some 70 years to gradually change and modify the philosophy of God’s creation. i.e. that God’s creation is basically Good. It is only through the abuse of our Free Will, that we chose to alienate ourselves from God’s Love…

Now from a practical point of view, I wonder whether our hands are any less worthy of touching Our Lord than our tongues, or our throat or esophagus or stomach or anything else. God made our hands as much as He made our lips and mouth. And what God creates is good. It is only our abuse of what God has created that may render something not acceptable.

The only thing that makes us unworthy, is our free choice to ‘Hurt our Lord’; that is for us to freely chose sin over God’s love."

**And to the question of receiving it from a lay person:

"NOW THE CHURCH HAS ALSO REALIZED THAT OUR LORD HAS ALLOWED HIS CHURCH/FLOCK TO INCREASE. TO A SIZE THAT MAKES IT DIFFUCULT FOR A PARISH PRIEST TO ADMINISTER THE PARISH AND THE SACRAMENTS WITHOUT AFFECTING HIS HEALTH. MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THE ACTS OF THE APPOSTLES TO SEE THE BEGINNIG OF THIS IN THE VERY EARLY DAYS OF THE CHURCH. I.E. THE INSTITUTION OF THE ORDER OF DEACON.

NOW AS THE CHURCH GREW AND GREW IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR THE BISHOP TO ADJUST FOR THE GROWTH OF HIS FLOCK. THE ORDER OF DEACON HAD FALLEN INTO DISUSE FOR ABOUT A THOUSAND YEARS. THEN IN THE LATE 1950’S AND 1960’S THE BISHOPS AGAIN REALIZED THE NEED FOR HELP. AND THEY REVISED THE ORDER OF DEACON, AN ORDER THAT HAS EXISTED FOR SOME 1920 SOME YEARS. ONE OF THE BASIS FOR RESUMPTION OF THIS ORDER COMES FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

BUT THEN THE NEED FOR HELP CONTINUED. SO THE BISHOPS APPROACHED THE PRIEST/PASTORS FOR THEIR IDEAS. AND THE POSITION OF EXTRA ORDINARY MINISTER OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST WAS DEVELOPED. PASTORS WERE ASKED TO SEARCH AND SELECT A PARISHIONER OF SPECIAL DEVOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL, MORAL AND VIRTUOUS LIVES AND ASKED THEM, AFTER SUITABLE TRAINING, TO ASSIST AT THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOLY EUCHARIST. THERE WERE SPECIAL CONSTRAINTS PLACED ON THESE PEOPLE. I.E. IT IS TIME LIMITED; THEY MUST BE TRAINED THROUGH A PROGRAM DEVELOPED BY THE DIOCESE, THERE ARE AGE LIMITATIONS, AND THEY ARE DELIGATED ONLY FOR THEIR OWN PARISH.

MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU REFER TO THE FIRST LETTER THAT ST PETER 2: 4-5, 9-10

“COME TO CHRIST, A LIVING STONE, REJECTED BY MEN BUT APPROVED, NONETHELESS, AND PRECIOUS IN GOD’S EYES. YOU TOO ARE LIVING STONES BUILT AS A EDIFICE OF SPIRIT, INTO A HOLY PRIESTHOOD, OFFERING SPIRITUAL SACRIFICE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.

YOU, HOWEVER, ARE A ‘CHOSEN RACE, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, CONECRTATED NATION, A PEOPLE HE CLAINS FOR HIS OWN TO PROCLAIM THE GLORIUS WORKS” OF THE ONE CALLED YOU FROM DARKNESS INTO HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT. ONCE YOU WERE ‘NO PEOPLE’, BUT NOW YOU ARE GOD’S PEOPLE; ONCE THERE WAS “NO MERCY FOR YOU” BUT NOW YOU HAVE FOUND MERCY’.

IF A HUMAN BEING IS DELIGATED TO DISTRIBUTE OUR LORD TO GOD’S CREATON WITH THEIR HANDS, IS THE REVERENCE OF AND TO OUR LORD ANY MORE DIMINISHED BY THE PERSON THAT IS RECEIVING OUR LORD INTO THEIR HANDS OR MOUTH? DOES IT MAKE THE GIVER ANY MORE WORTHY THAN THE RECEIVER?

AT THE LAST SUPPER, OUR LORD TOOK ORDINARY BREAD AND WINE, HE LOOKED UP TO HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN, THEN HE BLEST IT, BROKE IT AND GAVE IT TO HIS APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES. NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS PRACTICALLY HAPPENED. EACH RECEIVED OUR LORD’S BODY, BROKE OFF A PIECE, CONSUMMED IT, AND PASSED IT TO THE NEXT PERSON. THEN EACH RECEIVED THE CHALICE OF HIS BLOOD, TOOK A SIP, AND THEN PASSED IT TO THE NEXT. LOOK AT THE ACTION. IT WAS OUR LORD THAT TOOK THE BREAD AND WINE, BLESSED IT AND BROKE IT. BUT THEN HE GAVE IT TO HIS DISCIPLES/ HIS CREATION. WERE ANY OF THE APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES WORTHY TO RECEIVE THIS GREAT GIFT. I THINK NOT. BUT OUR LORD STILL CHOSE TO DO SO. AND HE THEN ASKED THEM TO GO AND DO LIKEWISE. EACH OF THE APOSTLES TOOK ORDINARY BREAD AND WISE, LOOKED UP TO HEAVEN, THEN BROKE THE FIRST PIECE, AND THEN PASSED IT TO THE NEWLY CONVERTED.

OH MY GOODNESS WHAT A GREAT GIFT TO HIS CREATION.

NO, NONE OF US IS WORTHY. BUT GOD IN HIS GOODNESS HAS SO ORDAINED. AND HE ALLOWS US TO BE THE RECIPIENTS OF HIS LOVE, GRACE AND GOODNESS. AND WE SHOULD THANK HIM EACH AND EVERY DAY FOR THIS GREAT GREAT GIFT."**
 
[From memory] I think Cardinal Arinze said there were circumstances in which a priest might employ EMHCs.

From memory, these were: ‘If the priest was 80, he was lame and he had 1000 communicants to attend to.’

He also said something along the lines of: ‘If you believe the Host is the Body of Christ, never mind kneeling, why don’t you crawl?.’
 
Layman said:
A
One day, figuratively speaking, you’re kneeling at the altar rail as your forefathers have done, the next you’re standing up to receive Communion from Mrs. Flaherty.
Click to expand...
Let’s be literal and historical, not only figurative. Where in the New Testament did people kneel to receive communion? Where in the early Church (let’s start with the first 6 centuries) do you have any evidence of people kneeling to receive communion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top