Receivng Communion on your Hand

[diggerdomer]

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

Kneeling is also, of course, a sign of penitence. This is an example of why, I think, it’s hard if not impossible to “legislate” what a given posture/gesture means. Many postures/gestures can mean more than one thing (like kneeling) and of course all are culturally conditioned (and hence, may not be universally the most appropriate one for a given liturgical circumstance).

 

[bluelake]

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.

alina,
Jesus did the same with the wine. I have never understood why the wine is omitted. Perhaps you can tell me.

bluelake

 

[JReducation]

alina,
Jesus did the same with the wine. I have never understood why the wine is omitted. Perhaps you can tell me.

bluelake

In a Seder meal there is breaking of bread and four cups of wine. What is usually done is that the bread is prayed over, broken by the head of the family and passed around the table. Each cup of wine is prayed over and each person drinks.

The Church stopped the passing of the cup and distributing communion on the hand for two different reasons.

1. It was commonly believed that only the hands of a priest should touch the Eucharistic bread. But this belief was wrong. The reason it was wrong is because deacons have always distrubed communion, since the time of the Apostles. As permanent deacons became extinct in the Latin Church, the only person who distributed the Eucharist was a priest. The laity assumed that this was because only the priest could touch it. The truth was that any cleric could do it: deacon, priest or bishop. In some Eastern Churches they kept the tradition of communion in the hand. The issue is not whether one is better than the other, as to whether one is preferred over th eother. In the Latin Church, communion on the tongue is preferred. This does not mean that it is wrong to receive it on the hand. As long as there is an indult, it is up to the bishop to make use of the indult or not. There is an indult in place for communion on the hand.
2. As to the passing of the chalice . . . that disappeared, because it’s not necessary. In the new “seder” Christ is fully present (body and blood) in both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine. It was maintained in some Eastern Churches. In resent times the Church has brought back communion under both species, but that’s an option. It’s not really necessary. The only ones who must drink from the chalice are the clerics on the altar.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

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.

It is very rare that someone receives Communion on the palm without grabbing the Host. Our Lord is placed onto their left hand, and they grab Him with their right hand. They take the Lord and place Him in their own mouths… this is opposed to how some will extend their tongue to RECEIVE the Lord. The Lord will come to them through the hand of the priest offering the Host in place of Christ on earth (more fully through Christ working through the priest), and they will accept Him by allowing Christ to come to them and to enter unto their tongue that He may enter under the roof… of their mouth. Others will merely grab the Host and place the Host into their own mouth (as if, by some merit of their own, they deserve to receive Christ, they have a right to taking our Lord and placing Him into their own bodies.

And, I never endorsed someone biting down on the host or something… I endorsed reception on the tongue to protect the sacred body of Our Lord.

 

[JReducation]

It is very rare that someone receives Communion on the palm without grabbing the Host. Our Lord is placed onto their left hand, and they grab Him with their right hand. They take the Lord and place Him in their own mouths… this is opposed to how some will extend their tongue to RECEIVE the Lord. The Lord will come to them through the hand of the priest offering the Host in place of Christ on earth (more fully through Christ working through the priest), and they will accept Him by allowing Christ to come to them and to enter unto their tongue that He may enter under the roof… of their mouth. Others will merely grab the Host and place the Host into their own mouth (as if, by some merit of their own, they deserve to receive Christ, they have a right to taking our Lord and placing Him into their own bodies.

And, I never endorsed someone biting down on the host or something… I endorsed reception on the tongue to protect the sacred body of Our Lord.

I’m not sure what you mean by protect the sacred body of our Lord. If you mean protect it from harm, there is not way that we can do physical harm to the Lord, even in the host. That’s metaphysically impossible. As to touching the host, the issue is not about being worthy. No one is worthy, not even the priest. The grace to come into physical contact with the Lord is given to us my God’s mercy, not our worthiness. There is nothing that we can do to make us worthy. That’s why we pray, “Lord I’m not worhty . . . .”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

1. It was commonly believed that only the hands of a priest should touch the Eucharistic bread. But this belief was wrong. The reason it was wrong is because deacons have always distrubed communion, since the time of the Apostles. As permanent deacons became extinct in the Latin Church, the only person who distributed the Eucharist was a priest. The laity assumed that this was because only the priest could touch it. The truth was that any cleric could do it: deacon, priest or bishop. In some Eastern Churches they kept the tradition of communion in the hand. The issue is not whether one is better than the other, as to whether one is preferred over th eother. In the Latin Church, communion on the tongue is preferred. This does not mean that it is wrong to receive it on the hand. As long as there is an indult, it is up to the bishop to make use of the indult or not. There is an indult in place for communion on the hand.

If you think of it my friend, the Apostles could have received the host with only their thumb and index finger, and it would not change whether or not that should be done. This is a matter of discipline, not infallibility or Divine Revelation. The Church has come to understand (through science) how the particles of the Host may come off of the host and will fall off the hand upon when you receive Holy Communion, so we find that it is best to receive on the tongue to prevent this. Also, we have come to better understand the amount of reverence that should be involved with Communion. The Church over centuries has come to understand how to bring more reverence and piety to Communion… we have found that priests should distribute first, then if we really need more distributes we can turn to deacons, then acolytes, etc. until we come down to needing aid from EMHCs (which the GIRM says are only to be used when there are not enough bishops, priests, deacons, acolytes, etc.). Don’t you see? We need someone to distribute the Hosts, so the priest (who is unworthily asked to hold the Host) is asked to do this though it would be idle for Christ Himself to distribute Communion to all . The priest touches the Host first in Persona Christi (the Person of Christ) and not as the priest. And, I will be shocked if the US’s indult remains for 50 more years.

…AT THE NAME OF JESUS…
Pax Domini tecum.

 

[diggerdomer]

alina,
Jesus did the same with the wine. I have never understood why the wine is omitted. Perhaps you can tell me.

bluelake

In short, the cup (wine, Blood) was removed from the laity (not the priests) due to a concern about the possibility of scandal resulting from spilling. This arose later in the Middle Ages. Today, though, it’s considered a “fuller sign” if both bread and wine are used at Mass.

 

[truevaticanii]

I’m not sure what you mean by protect the sacred body of our Lord. If you mean protect it from harm, there is not way that we can do physical harm to the Lord, even in the host. T hat’s metaphysically impossible. As to touching the host, the issue is not about being wcontorthy. No one is worthy, not even the priest. The grace to come into physical act with the Lord is given to us my God’s mercy, not our worthiness. There is nothing that we can do to make us worthy. That’s why we pray, “Lord I’m not worhty . . . .”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

By harm–I mean that each particle of the Host IS Jesus Christ, meaning that every single tiny piece that could possibly come off the host unknowingly when you take the Host off your left hand with your right… you often do not like your hand to receive each particle… you often put your hand down or something, so these little unseen particles (JESUS CHRIST) fall to the ground–no one would want that. In order to prevent this… traditional Catholic Masses have altar servers who guide the Host from the “bowl” to the mouth and are held under the chin of each Communicant as they receive on the tongue so that any particle that may fall off the tongue will fall to the paton and will later be wiped off the paton and–I think–wiped into the chalice to be consumed by the priest.

And, what I am saying is that–I–an unworthy Catholic do not deserve to grab my Lord and my God from my left hand and pop Him in my mouth… so I want to avoid this… instead, I will receive my Lord on the tongue when He offers HIMSELF to me… not when I am offered Him from a friend, so I receive Him on my hand, pick Him up, and place Him in my own mouth as if I am able to just take the Lord without Him offering HIMSELF to me.

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[truevaticanii]

In short, the cup (wine, Blood) was removed from the laity (not the priests) due to a concern about the possibility of scandal resulting from spilling. This arose later in the Middle Ages. Today, though, it’s considered a “fuller sign” if both bread and wine are used at Mass.

Which insults me because I only receive the Host and I know that I am fully receiving the Body and Blood in the Host… and I would rather not allow the Precious Blood of my Lord to fall from my lip onto the ground (which happened to me quite often when I used to receive from the Chalice)…

to say that receiving from the Chalice is a “more full experience” is like saying that I do not have as full of an experience… what about those who are allergic to the wine? are they doomed to never have a “more full experience”?

 

[truevaticanii]

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.

A very good point… I have heard of and seen Hosts being taken in the hand and placed in the pocket to be desicrated… those things would be less likely if people received the Host on teh tongue while the server holds a paton under the tongue so that the Host is in the mouth and the altar server can better watch for those who may not fully receive the Host as this is their job.

 

[JReducation]

If you think of it my friend, the Apostles could have received the host with only their thumb and index finger, and it would not change whether or not that should be done. This is a matter of discipline, not infallibility or Divine Revelation. The Church has come to understand (through science) how the particles of the Host may come off of the host and will fall off the hand upon when you receive Holy Communion, so we find that it is best to receive on the tongue to prevent this. Also, we have come to better understand the amount of reverence that should be involved with Communion. The Church over centuries has come to understand how to bring more reverence and piety to Communion… we have found that priests should distribute first, then if we really need more distributes we can turn to deacons, then acolytes, etc. until we come down to needing aid from EMHCs (which the GIRM says are only to be used when there are not enough bishops, priests, deacons, acolytes, etc.). Don’t you see? We need someone to distribute the Hosts, so the priest (who is unworthily asked to hold the Host) is asked to do this though it would be idle for Christ Himself to distribute Communion to all . The priest touches the Host first in Persona Christi (the Person of Christ) and not as the priest. And, I will be shocked if the US’s indult remains for 50 more years.

…AT THE NAME OF JESUS…
Pax Domini tecum.

There is something that you need to fix here. That is the role of the deacon. The deacon is not the second choice to distribute communion. The deacon, is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, because he is a cleric in Holy Orders. The rule that governs the deacons, since the time of the Apostles is that the deacons were ordained for the benefit of the bishop, which the Apostles were.

The custom was that the bishop would consecrate and sit. The deacon would distribute the Eucharist. This custom is still in use in many Eastern Churches where they kept the permanent diaconate, as well as Orthodox Churches. It is not that the priest is the first choice to distribute communion. The first choice is any minister ordained to any of the three orders of the priesthood: deacon, presbyter and bishop. That’s why the other are called extraordinary.

As to communion on the hand vs the tongue. This is only a debate in the West. In some Eastern Churches this has always been the case, They are just as Catholic as we Latin rite folks are. There is no universal rule on receiving communion. That’s why it was permissible to grant an indult. Because the method is, as you rightly said, not a matter of dogma, but of discipline. But this discipline is determined by each Church, not by the Holy See for the Universal Church. The Holy See allows each Church to act according their rite. In some rites they use spoons so they can dip the host in the chalice. In other rites they pour the consecrated wine over the consecrated bread, making the bread very moist and then they distribute it with a spoon. In other rights they hand the communicant the consecrated bread and then the consecrated wine. In mos rites, the deacon distributes communion, not the priest or the bishop.

Remember, each rite has its own canon laws. The canon law that we know was written just for us, the Latin Rite Church. There is an entire code of Canon Law for the East. In that code, the Eucharist may be distrubuted on the hand without an indult and the regular minister is the deacon, not the priest. They are just as much Catholics as we are.

Our debate about the communion in the hand vs communion in the mouth and our debate about the deacon vs the priest offends the Eastern Catholics. Because they feel that our way of talking makes it sound as if they are doing something wrong or less reverent, when in fact, their rituals and customs are just as old as ours and just as apostolic, not to mention, just as Catholic.

We have to be careful how we discuss these points to always make it clear that we’re not talking about Catholics, but only about Latin rite Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

Please visit truevaticanii.stblogs.com as I will often post blogs on this topic and hopefully you can come to at least see my point of view… I am a traditional Catholic… I love Vatican II, but too many people tell too many lies about it, so I use my blog to find the Truth in Vatican II documents to defeat the lies of those who claim that they know the “spirit of Vatican II”. The only “spirit of VII” that I know of is the Holy Spirit (the Holy Ghost).

Who says you can’t be a charismatic traditionalist?

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[JReducation]

Please visit truevaticanii.stblogs.com as I will often post blogs on this topic and hopefully you can come to at least see my point of view… I am a traditional Catholic… I love Vatican II, but too many people tell too many lies about it, so I use my blog to find the Truth in Vatican II documents to defeat the lies of those who claim that they know the “spirit of Vatican II”. The only “spirit of VII” that I know of is the Holy Spirit (the Holy Ghost).

Who says you can’t be a charismatic traditionalist?

Pax Domini tecum.

How does this speak to what I said about the Eastern rites and the order of deacon?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

There is something that you need to fix here. That is the role of the deacon. The deacon is not the second choice to distribute communion. The deacon, is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, because he is a cleric in Holy Orders. The rule that governs the deacons, since the time of the Apostles is that the deacons were ordained for the benefit of the bishop, which the Apostles were.

The custom was that the bishop would consecrate and sit. The deacon would distribute the Eucharist. This custom is still in use in many Eastern Churches where they kept the permanent diaconate, as well as Orthodox Churches. It is not that the priest is the first choice to distribute communion. The first choice is any minister ordained to any of the three orders of the priesthood: deacon, presbyter and bishop. That’s why the other are called extraordinary.

As to communion on the hand vs the tongue. This is only a debate in the West. In some Eastern Churches this has always been the case, They are just as Catholic as we Latin rite folks are. There is no universal rule on receiving communion. That’s why it was permissible to grant an indult. Because the method is, as you rightly said, not a matter of dogma, but of discipline. But this discipline is determined by each Church, not by the Holy See for the Universal Church. The Holy See allows each Church to act according their rite. In some rites they use spoons so they can dip the host in the chalice. In other rites they pour the consecrated wine over the consecrated bread, making the bread very moist and then they distribute it with a spoon. In other rights they hand the communicant the consecrated bread and then the consecrated wine. In mos rites, the deacon distributes communion, not the priest or the bishop.

Remember, each rite has its own canon laws. The canon law that we know was written just for us, the Latin Rite Church. There is an entire code of Canon Law for the East. In that code, the Eucharist may be distrubuted on the hand without an indult and the regular minister is the deacon, not the priest. They are just as much Catholics as we are.

Our debate about the communion in the hand vs communion in the mouth and our debate about the deacon vs the priest offends the Eastern Catholics. Because they feel that our way of talking makes it sound as if they are doing something wrong or less reverent, when in fact, their rituals and customs are just as old as ours and just as apostolic, not to mention, just as Catholic.

We have to be careful how we discuss these points to always make it clear that we’re not talking about Catholics, but only about Latin rite Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And that is all fine and dandy about the deacon and all, but according to the GIRM for the Latin or Roman Rite, the bishop is first to distribute, then priests, then deacons, then acolytes, then EMHCs. And, our greater understanding of reverence is as previously stated… disciplines change as we become aware of a lack of reverence and piety.

Yes, three of my siblings are Ruthinian Byzantine Rite Catholics of the Eparchy of Parma. They do receive Communion with the spoon and bowl and cloth and on the tongue and while kneeling and all. I do not know of many Eastern Rites that use standing or their hands for the reception of Holy Communion… but I do not see any reason for them to keep it that way if they wish to protect the Body of Christ (referring back to the particles and hand situation). … disciplines change as we become aware of a lack of reverence and piety.

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[truevaticanii]

How does this speak to what I said about the Eastern rites and the order of deacon?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You must understand that here, I am speaking of the reception of Holy Communion (hand v. tongue, kneeling v. standing, etc.)… now the whole standing v. kneeling part–perhaps I could see that for some Eastern Rites… the Greeks often stand for most of the liturgy–in reverence, but the whole hand thing just isn’t going to slide with me…

like I said, three of my siblings are Ruthenian Byzantine Rite Catholics, so I am well aware of the Eastern Rites.

 

[JReducation]

You must understand that here, I am speaking of the reception of Holy Communion (hand v. tongue, kneeling v. standing, etc.)… now the whole standing v. kneeling part–perhaps I could see that for some Eastern Rites… the Greeks often stand for most of the liturgy–in reverence, but the whole hand thing just isn’t going to slide with me…

like I said, three of my siblings are Ruthenian Byzantine Rite Catholics, so I am well aware of the Eastern Rites.

It is not up to us in the Latin rite to dictate to the Eastern Churches how to disribute communion, whether they do it on the hand or with a spoon. That’s up their code of canon law and their rubrics. Why do you want them to review this? What give us the right to even suggest that to them?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

It is not up to us in the Latin rite to dictate to the Eastern Churches how to disribute communion, whether they do it on the hand or with a spoon. That’s up their code of canon law and their rubrics. Why do you want them to review this? What give us the right to even suggest that to them?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If their practice was to desecrate the Eucharist… the Holy See would have to step in would it not? In order that we might protect the body of Christ… we would sit down with the Patriachs and Eparchs and Archeparchs and we would stop the desecration…

my point is that the amount particles from the Hosts that fall to the ground every day could greatly be reduced in number if all would receive on the tongue… what Pope, Cardinal, Patriarch, Archbishop, Archeparch, Bishop, or Eparch would not want to take extra steps to reduce that number?

“No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety.” -St. Justin the Martyr

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[JReducation]

If their practice was to desecrate the Eucharist… the Holy See would have to step in would it not? In order that we might protect the body of Christ… we would sit down with the Patriachs and Eparchs and Archeparchs and we would stop the desecration…

my point is that the amount particles from the Hosts that fall to the ground every day could greatly be reduced in number if all would receive on the tongue… what Pope, Cardinal, Patriarch, Archbishop, Archeparch, Bishop, or Eparch would not want to take extra steps to reduce that number?

“No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety.” -St. Justin the Martyr

Pax Domini tecum.

You must also remember that there are concordats between the Holy See and the Uniat Churches. Some of these concordats maintain a policy of non intervention on the part of Rome in matters of tradition and discipline. The Holy See is not about to violate those concordats. We cannot instigate such a breech.

You and I cannot run the Church. We have to step back and let the Holy See do what it thinks is best. Thus far, every document and every law that comes out of Rome regarding the Eastern Catholics and the Uniat Churches is on of non intervention on these matters. We promised to respect their autonomy when these concordats were signed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[damooster]

And that is all fine and dandy about the deacon and all, but according to the GIRM for the Latin or Roman Rite, the bishop is first to distribute, then priests, then deacons, then acolytes, then EMHCs.

It amazes me that you can refer to the GIRM to prove your point, yet ignore the fact that the GIRM also says that Holy Communion can be received by either on the hand or on the tongue, and that the proper posture for receiving is standing.

 

[Ockham]

Well…yes…it’s in the (current) GIRM, but it wasn’t always. Why was it changed. Rather than incessantly refrain “it’s in the GIRM” it would be nice if this discussion could delve deeper into the reasons it was for centuries and suddenly removed in the “spirit of Vatican II”. Otherwise, when the GIRM is hopefully corrected, I assume none of you will object.