Receivng Communion on your Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter cuqui
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican’s liturgist.

While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more traditional practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.

Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights “the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily,” he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

Pastorally speaking, he said “it is urgent to highlight and recover” these aspects of the sacredness and mystery of the Eucharist in modern times.

Generally at papal Masses, those receiving Communion from the pope stand and the majority choose to receive on the tongue.

But starting with a May 22 Mass outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran, two ushers placed a kneeler in front of the altar and the chosen communicants all knelt and received on the tongue.

At a June 15 Mass in the southern Italian port city of Brindisi, the pope again distributed Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they were kneeling.

In the Vatican newspaper interview, Msgr. Marini was asked if this practice was destined to become the norm in all papal celebrations, and he replied, “I really think so.”

He said “it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand, from a juridical standpoint, remains up to now an indult,” which is an exemption from a general requirement that is granted by the Vatican to the bishops’ conferences which have requested it. He said the pope’s adoption of the traditional practice of distributing Communion "aims to highlight the force of the valid norm for the whole church."

However, the pope’s preference for the traditional practice is not meant to “take anything away from the other” permissible form of standing or receiving the Eucharist in the hand, he said.

Msgr. Marini told the Vatican newspaper that Pope Benedict also would be introducing another change to future papal liturgies during his June 29 Mass marking the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the patron saints of Rome.

He said the pope would begin wearing a shorter pallium – a circular woolen band worn over the shoulders with a shorter strip hanging down the front and back – similar to the kind worn by Pope John Paul II.

Pope Benedict had been wearing a pallium similar to ones worn by popes in the first millennium, when the woolen band was wrapped around the pope’s shoulders and hung down his left side to just below his knees.

Msgr. Marini said the new pallium was chosen for two reasons: “to more heavily underline the continued development this liturgical vestment has had over the span of more than 12 centuries” and to be more practical.

The longer pallium the pope had been using created “different and troublesome problems,” he said.

The newer, shorter pallium is decorated with six red crosses instead of black ones. Like other palliums, the end piece is made of black silk, a symbol of the black sheep which the shepherd rescues and carries over his shoulder back to the flock.

The white woolen pallium is a sign of the pope’s and an archbishop’s authority over the Christian community and the Gospel authority of a shepherd called to carry his sheep, to lead them and to feed them.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm
 
In a homily Sunday at the Cathedral of Lima, Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani said, “The most respectful manner of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover the respect and reverence that the Eucharist deserves, because the love of Jesus is the center of our Christian life. The soul is at stake.”

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17181
 
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The reverence and awe of Catholics who truly believe they are receiving Jesus in the Eucharist should lead them to kneel and receive Communion on their tongues, said a bishop writing in the Vatican newspaper.

“If some nonbeliever arrived and observed such an act of adoration perhaps he, too, would ‘fall down and worship God, declaring, God is really in your midst,’” wrote Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, quoting from the First Letter to the Corinthians.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800122.htm
 
While it may very well be true that some early Christians received on the hand:

that was before we found out how tiny particles could much more easily fall from the “bread” when someone receives with their hand than with the tongue… this also allows priests to be more confident in knowing that everyone who did receive, actually DID receive and they did not just take the host and put it in their pocket for a satanic black mass or something.

And yes, the Apostles did touch the host with their hands, but they were priests with consecrated hands who did not know so much about the tiny particles being able to fall from the host.

“Communion may be received either in the hand or on the tongue. Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” (Catechetical Lectures 23:22).”
-http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

While this is true that St. Cyril describes people receiving on the hand, you will notice that he says, “For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?”. His statement is a great arguement for receiving on the tongue today (though he probably did not realize what I stated above about tiny pieces of the host).

I would suggest this video:gloria.tv/?media=2710

Also, I often post about such a subject on my blog, feel free to read my thoughts on it: truevaticanii.stblogs.com/ 👍

Pax Domini Tecum.
 
paperwight said:
Well, that’s only his personal opinion. It’s not what the Church as a whole teaches. Perhaps he holds this opinion because of teaching in his childhood, perhaps in reaction to a particular problem he’s seen in his diocese. But it still remains only his opinion.

Oddly enough, this Sunday notices were up in our church with a directive from OUR Archbishop,headed ‘Update on Swine Flu’, saying that communion on the tongue ‘is to be strongly discouraged’.

When the swine flu situation is over, I doubt very much if many would want to go back to COTT, having been made so aware of the health risks.

If the Vatican ever changed the discipline and made COTT mandatory, I foresee discontent and even rebellion. I hope the Vatican would not be so foolish as to risk it.
Click to expand...
Sir the Official teaching of the Church is that we are to receive on the Tongue & All Priests, Deacons, & Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist must give it on the Tongue of any Communicant that requests it that way. In the Hand reception, as noted many times before, is an Indult that can & has been granted in various Dioceses. Again though, any communicant can request it on the tongue & it must be delivered that way.
 
imkingdad said:
Sir the Official teaching of the Church is that we are to receive on the Tongue .
Click to expand...
Not in the United States. In the United States the official teaching of the Church is that the individual communicant is free to receive on the tongue or in the hand.
 
Ockham said:
That is your opinion which is probably what most of this thread has included: opinions. Factually, kneeling is a more reverant gesture than standing. Receiving holy communion directly unto your tongue from the consecrated hand of the priest is more reverant. Increased reverance increases spiritual benefits.
Click to expand...
  1. The hands of the priest are not consecrated, because he distributes communion. They are consecrated because he confects the sacrament and he blesses with those hands.
  2. A deacon is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist and his hands are not consecrated. To use this logic, only priests should distribute communion. This has never been the practice of any of the Apostolic Churches. Deacons have always had the right to distribute communion since the tme of the Apostles. The diaconate was instituted so that they could, “wait on tables” among other ministries.
  3. Kneeling may be a more reverent posture, but the posture itself does not guarrantee the reverence of the individual. We have a priest who is a paraplegic. He cannot walk or kneel. He uses two canes. He would fall with just one cane. He has CP. He has to stand in one spot, lean on his canes with his elbows while distributing communion. He holds the ciborium in one hand and distributes communion with the other. Eveyrone who receives from him must stand, because if he bends over, he will fall. The reverence of the people receiving communion and of the priest who cannot genuflect when he consecrates is never called into queston. You see what I mean when I say that the posture is not a guarrantee of reverence?
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I have never received communion in the hand. I learned to receive it on the tongue and I find it mind-boggling to see people older than me receiving in the hand because I know they learned to receive it on the tonge like I did. I have witnessed many abuses - people putting the host in their pocket, running out the church with it, children taking a bite and then doing who knows what with the rest (this was a couple of months ago and the child is the son of a gay couple - God have mercy). It has been well documented that cults attempt to steal the Eucharist and for that reason I believe the instigation of this practice is diabolical.
 
bene_vale said:
I have never received communion in the hand. I learned to receive it on the tongue and I find it mind-boggling to see people older than me receiving in the hand because I know they learned to receive it on the tonge like I did. I have witnessed many abuses - people putting the host in their pocket, running out the church with it, children taking a bite and then doing who knows what with the rest (this was a couple of months ago and the child is the son of a gay couple - God have mercy). It has been well documented that cults attempt to steal the Eucharist and for that reason I believe the instigation of this practice is diabolical.
Click to expand...
No, the desecration of the Eucharist is diabolical. The practice of receiving communion on the hand existed in the early Church. It gradually disappeared in many of the Churches, but some Churches kept it to this day.

Remember, Christ first distributed communion at a seder meal. The proper way to distribute the bread at a seder meal is in the hand. It is broken by the head (usually the father), blessed, then given to those around you. Only when everyone has received it in their hand, do they eat it. This practice was used by the early Church in Jerusalem. It was later dropped as the Church migrated to Europe because of the pagan practices in Europe. There was a serious attempt to protect the Eucharist from paganism. But it was preserved in the East for many centuries and gradually dropped by many of the Eastern Churches. A few still have it, but no many.

The reason that the Eastern Churches dropped it was because they stopped using the common cup. They started using intinction. Thus they use a spoon with a soaked peace of consecrated bread. Prio to intinction, they had a chalice and a consecrated bread and you partook of each. There are one or two rites as well as some of the Orthodox rites that still use communion in the hand and drinking from the “common cup”.

The spoon replaced the common cup because in some Eastern Churches the tradition evolved as well. But we cannot say that communion in the hand is diabolical, when there are Catholic and Orthdox Churches that still use it, not by indult, but because it’s their tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
  1. The hands of the priest are not consecrated, because he distributes communion. They are consecrated because he confects the sacrament and he blesses with those hands.
  2. A deacon is also an ordinary minister of the Eucharist and his hands are not consecrated. To use this logic, only priests should distribute communion. This has never been the practice of any of the Apostolic Churches. Deacons have always had the right to distribute communion since the tme of the Apostles. The diaconate was instituted so that they could, “wait on tables” among other ministries.
  3. Kneeling may be a more reverent posture, but the posture itself does not guarrantee the reverence of the individual. We have a priest who is a paraplegic. He cannot walk or kneel. He uses two canes. He would fall with just one cane. He has CP. He has to stand in one spot, lean on his canes with his elbows while distributing communion. He holds the ciborium in one hand and distributes communion with the other. Eveyrone who receives from him must stand, because if he bends over, he will fall. The reverence of the people receiving communion and of the priest who cannot genuflect when he consecrates is never called into queston. You see what I mean when I say that the posture is not a guarrantee of reverence?
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
  1. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
Now, I realize deacons have always had this right to distribute Communion. How do you respeond st St. Thomas, a doctor of the Church?
  1. Red Herring Alert: I nor anyone else in this discussion has stated that those physically unable to genuflect must anyway. Likewise no one has stated that a more reverent gesture necessarily creates more reverence. Actually, if you read my sources that point has already been made.
 
diggerdomer said:
From the beginning.
Click to expand...
I see. As far as I can work out, this practice was dropped well before the split with the Orthodox, in the springtime of the universal Church.

The only authority I recall speaking for it is St. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking in 348AD. Ockham has quoted many sources since then speaking against it or for COTT.

Given that:

This practice was ‘revived’ in the Roman Catholic Church by progressive Dutch clergy;
For no obvious beneficial reason;
And lets children and the ignorant play with the Host, or worse;
And is part of a pattern of inserting mundane and inconsistent elements into the rite …

I think it should be stopped. No obvious benefits, some serious deficits.

See, you gotta ask yourself: Why drop COTT, kneeling, from a priest? Too much trouble? Too humbling? To backbreaking for delicate priests?

Or just part of the modern fixation with change, the new and with archeologisms for their own sake? Like kids moving around the furniture in the sitting room.
 
Ockham said:
  1. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
Now, I realize deacons have always had this right to distribute Communion. How do you respeond st St. Thomas, a doctor of the Church?
  1. Red Herring Alert: I nor anyone else in this discussion has stated that those physically unable to genuflect must anyway. Likewise no one has stated that a more reverent gesture necessarily creates more reverence. Actually, if you read my sources that point has already been made.
Click to expand...
The answer to St. Thomas is very simple. St. Thomas is a theologian, but he was never a prelate. He did not make law for the Church. He wrote theology. The Church took from his writings what she needed and what she could use and left the rest. A good example of this is Thomas’ position that Mary was born without original sin, not conceived without original sin. The Church did not adopt his position.

The same applies to the deacon. The Church did not apply Thomas’ position, because the deacon is part of the ordained ministry of the Church. Since the time of the early Church and later the Fathers of the Church, it was always the law of the Church that a deacon was ordained to serve the bishop. Therefore, if a bishop did not want to distribute communion at mass, he would sit and have the deacon do so. The early Fathers took this from the Acts of the Apostles where the Apostles are having a discussion about whether they should be distributing communion or doing other things. Then they selected Steven and a few other men and imposed hands on them.

The historical and biblical tradition of the diaconate is that deacons came into being, because the Apostles, who where bishops, needed someone to distribute communion, preach and perform other ministries in their stead. That’s why to this day, the deacon is properly the assistant to the bishop. So in most liturgies where there is a deacon, a priest and a bishop, it is the deacon who assists the priest. That is his function. The bishop has the option not to preach and not to distribute communion, for that is why he has a deacon next to him. Granted, I don’t know any bishop who exercise the option of not distributing communion, but this is their right when a deacon is present, not when a priest is present and there is not deacon. Then the bishop must distribute communion. The priest can help. But the bishop may not sit it out.

But Aquinas has no legal authority in any of these areas. We have to recall that the doctors of the Church are teachers of the Church, not legislators. Their word is not law. The Church chooses what to make law and what not to make law. She often refers to them for insight.

Right now, our current pope uses Bonaventure and Augustine more than he does Aquinas, because he is not an expert in Thomistic theology. His two doctoral degrees were in Bonaventure (Franciscan) and Augustine (Patristic) theologies. Paul VI on the other hand, was a Doctor of Canon Law. He worked with law and always referred to the sytematic theologians for his theological consults. John Paul II was a systematic theologian and a philosopher. His training came from Aquinas.

My point is that the doctors are not legislators. They are teachers. They cannot make law and what they teach is not to be interpreted as legally binding unless the Church hierarchy says that it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

PS. The corporal is no longer consecrated. It is blessed, but not consecrated. That practice ended long before Vatican II. No one seems to know why. A possible reason may have been that the religious orders did not have bishops when they went off to the missions. Only a bishop can consecrate. A priest can consecrate with delegation from a bishop, just like he can confirm. But those are very special cases. I’m just guessing that this may have been why this practice faded away. No one really has an answer, because there was never a document or order to stop consecrating them. It’s just no longer done, since the 1500s. That’s about the time that the first missionaries left for the Americas. JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
PS. The corporal is no longer consecrated. It is blessed, but not consecrated. That practice ended long before Vatican II. No one seems to know why. A possible reason may have been that the religious orders did not have bishops when they went off to the missions. Only a bishop can consecrate. A priest can consecrate with delegation from a bishop, just like he can confirm. But those are very special cases. I’m just guessing that this may have been why this practice faded away. No one really has an answer, because there was never a document or order to stop consecrating them. It’s just no longer done, since the 1500s. That’s about the time that the first missionaries left for the Americas. JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think we even bless our corporals. The altar ladies make them and put them in the draw. I have never seen one blessed. And I don’t think chalices are consecrated either, at least our newest ones weren’t. The pastor just blessed them before we used them.
 
Joannm said:
I don’t think we even bless our corporals. The altar ladies make them and put them in the draw. I have never seen one blessed. And I don’t think chalices are consecrated either, at least our newest ones weren’t. The pastor just blessed them before we used them.
Click to expand...
If your pastor blessed it, that’s all the consecration required. It probably means that the bishop allows the priests to do it themselves, which a diocese where the bishop has a full schedule would make sense. That’s why priests confirm at Easter. There is no way that bishops could make all those rounds. It’s the same logic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Ockham said:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) He said “it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand, from a juridical standpoint, remains up to now an indult,” which is an exemption from a general requirement that is granted by the Vatican to the bishops’ conferences which have requested it. He said the pope’s adoption of the traditional practice of distributing Communion "aims to highlight the force of the valid norm for the whole church."
Click to expand...
Odd that that that part was highlighted but the following sentence was ignored:

However, the pope’s preference for the traditional practice is not meant to “take anything away from the other” permissible form of standing or receiving the Eucharist in the hand, he said.

And even the Pope’s having people kneeling and receiving on the tongue, when Msgr. Marini was asked if it was to become the norm he responded “I really think so”. That is far less than a directive that the Pope is only going to distribute to those kneeling and on the tongue. And it only addresses it as a norm either way, not as an absolute.

Pretty much destroys any contention that the Pope is claiming CITH to be inferior, but only as a previous poster noted, that he is following in the norm as would be expected. It could well be nothing more than another concession to show that he is not opposed to the traditonalist positions. Just conjecture of course, but no more so than a large part of what appears in this thread.
 
“That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth”. -Phil 2:10 That’s at the mere mention of HIS Holy name! What more should we do when we are in HIS True Presense… probably fall to the ground… that would be rather difficult to do while receiving Holy Communion, so we do the second best thing… kneel! 👍

Blessed Imelda Lambertini DIED after receiving Holy Communion… she basically was filled with such love and joy that she likely entered directly into Heaven through such a Beautiful Communion. What was she doign at the time? She was on her knees, kneeling before her Lord and her God, and she was receiving on the tongue because she felt that her hands were not worthy enough to touch the Lord’s Intametly Exposed and Sacred Body. She did not reach out and take the Lord, He offered himself to her, and she received Him under her roof. “And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.” -Mt. 8:8

Why do people receive on the tongue?

Catholic bishops conferences whose nations had been receiving on the hand for some time (illicitly) requested for an indult to do so, while Catholic bishops in America chose to do the same thing (likely because some groups in the US also did this illicitly, and rather than enforcing the discipline, the bishops just tried to “hide” the problem). This indult was granted AFTER Vatican II, not before. …I wouldn’t doubt that the same is true in concerns with kneeling v. standing.

Can I receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling?

youtube.com/watch?v=EcZhjmYn1K8

youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM&feature=related

Why do people receive kneeling and on the tongue?

gloria.tv/?media=2710

What is “more” pious?

truevaticanii.stblogs.com/2009/08/02/why-not-get-up-and-dance-at-mass/

I would suggest reading “Understanding the Mystery of the Mass” as well.

The priest’s hands are CONCECRATED… PERIOD… and their hands were meant for the giving of Holy Sacraments… if you don’t have to grab the host, then why do it? You might as well start receiving an the tongue, I am sure that it will soon be the norm in the USA as well as many other countries.

remember, even the priest kneels before recieving Holy Communion!

Pax Domini tecum. St. Pius X, ora pro nobis! St. Pio, ora pro nobis!
 
It might be iteresting to note on this thread that with flu season approaching there are bishops that are asking people to only receive in the hand. And people who receive in the hand do not “grab” the Host. It is placed on their palm. That is a lot better than people I have distributed communion to in the mouth who actually bite it instead of sticking out their tongue. It is more common than you might think.
 
How can some of you claim that receiving Holy Communion while kneeling is factually more reverent than standing? A fact implies that the statement can not be disproven. In other words, you’re saying that every single person that is kneeling is more reverent than those that are standing.

How do you measure reverence? Is it in bytes or pounds or liters? Decibels?

An example of a fact: Jupiter is the largest known planet in the solar system.

An opinion: Those who kneel while receiving Holy Communion are more reverent than those that stand.
 
damooster said:
How can some of you claim that receiving Holy Communion while kneeling is factually more reverent than standing? A fact implies that the statement can not be disproven. In other words, you’re saying that every single person that is kneeling is more reverent than those that are standing.

How do you measure reverence? Is it in bytes or pounds or liters? Decibels?

An example of a fact: Jupiter is the largest known planet in the solar system.

An opinion: Those who kneel while receiving Holy Communion are more reverent than those that stand.
Click to expand...
We can say that in our Western Culture and in some Eastern Cultures, kneeling is a sign of reverence. But that’s the action or the posture, not the person. Let’s give a good example. It’s resepctful to stand when a person of authority enters a room. It does not mean that you necessarily habor good feelings for that person. Ask anyone who is in the military.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top