Receivng Communion on your Hand

[diggerdomer]

So because CITH can be denied but CITT can’t I find it reasonable to conclude the Church’s preference is for reception of Holy Communion on the tongue. Why did this trend of CITH start up anyway? Hopefully we are close to the day the Holy Church returns to a truly universal norm and this recent trend goes away. After all, “catholic” is synonymus with “universal” and as we pray we believe. If we all believe in the Real Presence then we should be unified in our reverence and practice to receiving Holy Communion.

CITH cannot be denied in the U.S., it’s allowed on the same level of authority and preference as COTT.

You can conclude whatever you want.

We are unified in our faith and belief (e.g. creed, sacraments). Disciplines like the mode of distributing communion is obviously not something the Church considers a need to impose uniformity on (e.g. there are provisions to receive on the tongue, in the hand, by intinction, under one or both species, etc.).

 

[Ockham]

As I understand it, if the Pope comes to America and distributes Communion it will be denied to those standing.

CITH was practiced by the earliest Christians, but then COTT evolved as a more reverent and proper way to receive the Blessed Sacrament. During the Protestant Reformation, CITH was promoted as a way to contradict the Real Presence. After V2, CITH was rekindled in Holland, spread like wildfire in certain “Progessive” parishes and was issued an indult rather than risk their separation. Soon after, the practice spread to the majority of diocese in the Western world and infiltrated the USCCB who eventually capitulated it into the GIRM. We need to pray for this inferior method of receiving our Lord to leave our parishes and practices upon a return to the more reverent and traditional way of paying homage to our Lord, Redeemer, and Creator.

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

 

[diggerdomer]

As I understand it, if the Pope comes to America and distributes Communion it will be denied to those standing.

Maybe. Maybe not. Let’s wait and see. Purely hypothetical, so not really a basis for rational objective discussion.

CITH was practiced by the earliest Christians, but then COTT evolved as a more reverent and proper way to receive the Blessed Sacrament. During the Protestant Reformation, CITH was promoted as a way to contradict the Real Presence.

Good, you at least acknowledge the reality (truth) that CITH was practiced by the earliest Christians. And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, this practice continued uninterrupted in the Catholic Church.

Are you saying or implying that Catholics who receive communion in the hand deny the Real Presence? Please for once, just answer the question, don’t ignore or obfuscate it.

 

[estesbob]

In countries where the indult (exeption) has been granted CITT cannont be denied. I wonder what happens in countries not succumbing to the indult where someone wishes to receive CITH. I wonder if that can be denied? Does anyone know?

On second thought, Pope Benedict XVI only distributes Holy Communion to those on their knees and on their tonges, so I guess that answers the question.

I spend a lot of time in Mexico where COTT is the norm. Mostly US tourists hold out their hands and i have never seen them refused. I recieve on the tongue in Mexico as that is the norm.

 

[Ockham]

Maybe. Maybe not. Let’s wait and see. Purely hypothetical, so not really a basis for rational objective discussion.

Good, you at least acknowledge the reality (truth) that CITH was practiced by the earliest Christians. And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, this practice continued uninterrupted in the Catholic Church.

Are you saying or implying that Catholics who receive communion in the hand deny the Real Presence? Please for once, just answer the question, don’t ignore or obfuscate it.

There’s no maybe about it. If you want to receive Holy Communion from the Pope you’ll be on your knees. Are you humble enough for that?

Stop spinning my argument into conjecture. I don’t ignore, obfuscate, or distort direct questions. I have never said people who receive standing and in the hand deny the Real Presence. By suggesting such a thing you are deliberately avoiding the issue and attempting to relocate the argument to absurd location. You have proven time and time again your inability to discuss this subject on a logical, rational, or mature basis. If you can’t offer anything more than superficial conjecture then stop responding to my posts. There is substantial proof for Communion on the tongue while kneeling and all you have offered against it personal preference and “it’s in the GIRM” flak. If you have any respect for yourself step up or out of this discussion. You are wasting everyone’s time and opportunity to learn.

 

[estesbob]

There’s no maybe about it. If you want to receive Holy Communion from the Pope you’ll be on your knees. Are you humble enough for that?

Stop spinning my argument into conjecture. I don’t ignore, obfuscate, or distort direct questions. I have never said people who receive standing and in the hand deny the Real Presence. By suggesting such a thing you are deliberately avoiding the issue and attempting to relocate the argument to absurd location. You have proven time and time again your inability to discuss this subject on a logical, rational, or mature basis. If you can’t offer anything more than superficial conjecture then stop responding to my posts. There is substantial proof for Communion on the tongue while kneeling and all you have offered against it personal preference and “it’s in the GIRM” flak. If you have any respect for yourself step up or out of this discussion. You are wasting everyone’s time and opportunity to learn.

There is no substantial "proof: for COTT-just your opinion. The fact is that in the United States the norm is to receive it in the hand. This is one of those “how many Angels can dance on thehead of a pin” discussions that i am sure our seperated bretheren take great pleasure in watchng.

 

[Ockham]

There is no substantial "proof: for COTT-just your opinion. The fact is that in the United States the norm is to receive it in the hand. This is one of those “how many Angels can dance on thehead of a pin” discussions that i am sure our seperated bretheren take great pleasure in watchng.

It’s the opinion of the universal Church. CITH is only an indult in the USA. I’m sure our separated bretheren pray for an end to our liturgical chaos created by the 'spirit of V2" such as CITH. We should be leaders in worship to God as we are the original Church.

How many times does this point need to be made?

 

[JReducation]

In countries where the indult (exeption) has been granted CITT cannont be denied. I wonder what happens in countries not succumbing to the indult where someone wishes to receive CITH. I wonder if that can be denied? Does anyone know?

On second thought, Pope Benedict XVI only distributes Holy Communion to those on their knees and on their tonges, so I guess that answers the question.

I can ansewr your question about communion on the tongue in a diocese where the indult is not use. When we were in the missions in the Archdiocese of Guayaquil, the indult is not used there. However, the instructions were very clear. If a person appears before you and puts out their hand, you give them communion. The reason being is that in many metropolitan areas there are often people who come from other places where the indult is in place. You do not create a scene at the communion station, when none is necessary. Those who move into such a diocese, from another that uses the indult, will soon realize that the rule in their new home is communion on the tongue. It was handled very simply without any discussion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KingTheoden]

Again, just because something was practiced originally does not mean it is proper given the fullness of our understanding of God today.

This is precisely the error in logic among those who insist on Communion in the hand (CITH). "It was an ancient practice’ simply is a poor argument.

Fairly early on, it became clear that since Jesus is fully present and substantial in the Eucharist, a more dignified and protective fashion was needed to receive Him. It must also be noted that CITH dealt with the most committed and fervent believers; the risk of one of them walking of with a consecrated host for malicious purposes was nil.

Today, out of blatent pride, progressives are directly responsible for Hosts being abducted and abused. Sure, that might sound corny and make squeemish those who, deep down, just don’t get the seriousness of Christ making Himself present in a physical way. But it is no less true. CITH has let terrible people like PZ Meyers to do horrible things to the Eucharist.

Communion on the tongue would make it much, much harder for such malevolent acts. Furthermore, it would reinforce to our brothers and sister just what is Communion. Not all Catholics are as informed as we might be; for them, the motions of the liturgy mean a lot especially as they apply to the Eucharist.

 

[Ockham]

Thank you for your response Br JR. So what would happen if someone approached our Holy Father for Holy Communion standing with hands extended?

 

[JReducation]

As I understand it, if the Pope comes to America and distributes Communion it will be denied to those standing.

With all due respect to the person who told you this, it is not the case. This was clearly explained by the bishops to the clergy and religious who attended the Holy Father’s mass in NY. I was there.

First of all, you’re not allowed to choose to receive communion from the Holy Father at any of his masses. Only those who are selected prior to the mass may receive communion from him. Second, those who are chosen are advised in advanced that he distributes communion kneeling and on the tongue. If you want to decline the invitation to receive communion from the Holy Father, you may do so prior to the mass and someone else is chosen.

In the event that a person who is chosen does present standing and puts out his/her hands, he will still be given communion. The Holy Father is not going to make a public issue out of it. But it would be very disrespectful to do so, since you have been advised of the procedure beforehand and given the option to decline the invitation.

I did receive communion from Pope John Paul II on the tongue, but standing, at the Vatican as his Midnight Mass on Christmas 1999. At that time, the practice as St. Peter’s was that you could stand, but you received on the tongue, but only in the Basilica of St. Peter, not in the Archdiocese of Rome. In the Archdiocese of Rome you may receive on the hand. The bishop of Rome has approeved the use of the indult. Vatican City is not part of the Archdiocese. However, when the pope celebrates mass in his cathedral in the Archdiocese, the same rule applies. He distributes communion on the tongue and kneeling, but that is a personal choice of Pope Benedict. A future pope can do things differently. The pope can even do one thing when he celebrates a papal mass and another when he celebrates mass as the Bishop of Rome for his parishioners in his diocese. In his diocese he has to employ the council of the clergy, like any other bishop, and he has deans and vicars like any other Ordinary. He does not act alone in matters concerning his diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Again, just because something was practiced originally does not mean it is proper given the fullness of our understanding of God today.

This is precisely the error in logic among those who insist on Communion in the hand (CITH). "It was an ancient practice’ simply is a poor argument.

Fairly early on, it became clear that since Jesus is fully present and substantial in the Eucharist, a more dignified and protective fashion was needed to receive Him. It must also be noted that CITH dealt with the most committed and fervent believers; the risk of one of them walking of with a consecrated host for malicious purposes was nil.

Today, out of blatent pride, progressives are directly responsible for Hosts being abducted and abused. Sure, that might sound corny and make squeemish those who, deep down, just don’t get the seriousness of Christ making Himself present in a physical way. But it is no less true. CITH has let terrible people like PZ Meyers to do horrible things to the Eucharist.

Communion on the tongue would make it much, much harder for such malevolent acts. Furthermore, it would reinforce to our brothers and sister just what is Communion. Not all Catholics are as informed as we might be; for them, the motions of the liturgy mean a lot especially as they apply to the Eucharist.

But as Brother David pointed out, there are some Eastern Churches that have communion in the hand. To say that this is an evil or an erroneous practice is to insinuate that the other Churches are doing something that is wrong. For this reason alone, we cannot make this statement. If the other apostolic Churches do it, then it cannot be wrong or evil. What is good for one Church has to be good for the universal Church. It cannot be evil in the Latin Church alone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

Not yet.

Oh, there’s a quote from a third century saint about making your hand a throne for the King, however it’s been disputed by saints, popes, theologians and others ever since. And compared to the volume of saints, popes, theologians speaking against CITH you’d think people would take the hint by now.

So, until this current generation of bishops on the USCCB retire or go to their reward, we are left with the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes in the GIRM. Hopefully this period of liturgical chaos will eventually become a footnote in the history of our Church.

I actually did quote him in another post… and I said that he talks about how the host is more precious than gold and you would not let a single piece of gold become lost because the gold is so valuable… so it would make even more sense to not want to lose a single piece of the Host to the floor, so we should receive on the tongue to prevent that.

Thank you for posting Ockham!

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[truevaticanii]

But as Brother David pointed out, there are some Eastern Churches that have communion in the hand. To say that this is an evil or an erroneous practice is to insinuate that the other Churches are doing something that is wrong. For this reason alone, we cannot make this statement. If the other apostolic Churches do it, then it cannot be wrong or evil. What is good for one Church has to be good for the universal Church. It cannot be evil in the Latin Church alone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Not saying it is evil or good but…

Just because one Rite does something a certain way does not mean that it is right, proper, pius, reverent, etc. That would not justify anything. Perhaps it is wrong entirely everywhere… you are correct in saying that it cannot be reverent in one place and absolutely evil in another (keeping in mind that it can be reverent in one right and less reverent in another without it ever being evil). You act as if an action cannot be evil if it is practiced in at least one of the rites… the GIRM and such are not infallible.

…and I couldn’t resist saying this, but, I can’t imagine St. Francis of Assisi receiving on the hand… it would be horrible if such a thing was done at that time in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just because one Rite does something a certain way does not mean that it is right,:

What? Rites are approved by the Church. If you are saying someone following a Rite is not “right” then what are you saying? Following the Catholic Church’s liturgical law is not correct?

I hope I misunderstand you, can you please clarify? Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

There’s no maybe about it. If you want to receive Holy Communion from the Pope you’ll be on your knees. Are you humble enough for that?

Stop spinning my argument into conjecture. I don’t ignore, obfuscate, or distort direct questions. I have never said people who receive standing and in the hand deny the Real Presence. By suggesting such a thing you are deliberately avoiding the issue and attempting to relocate the argument to absurd location. You have proven time and time again your inability to discuss this subject on a logical, rational, or mature basis. If you can’t offer anything more than superficial conjecture then stop responding to my posts. There is substantial proof for Communion on the tongue while kneeling and all you have offered against it personal preference and “it’s in the GIRM” flak. If you have any respect for yourself step up or out of this discussion. You are wasting everyone’s time and opportunity to learn.

Ok then please tell me what you mean by what you said:

If we all believe in the Real Presence then we should be unified in our reverence and practice to receiving Holy Communion

.

Do you mean that the fact that there are different ways of receiving communion mean that some believe and some don’t based on how they receive? How should we interpret what you said?

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[truevaticanii]

What? Rites are approved by the Church. If you are saying someone following a Rite is not “right” then what are you saying? Following the Catholic Church’s liturgical law is not correct?

I hope I misunderstand you, can you please clarify? Thank you.

The Rites are approved by the Church: the Byzantine Carpo-Ruthenian Rite, the Byzantine Arminian Rite, etc. The individual Rites are Rites of the Catholic Church with Patriarchs who stand as Cardinals, Archeparchs who stand as Archbishops, Eparchs who stand as Bishops, and priests who stand as priests. You may receive Communion from them any time you wish. They are Rites of the Church (almost like Churches within the Church). There are in fact 21 Rites–I think that may include the Roman or Latin Rite, which is the largest of the Catholic Rites. They practice valid and licit liturgies. Their Divine Liturgy (e.g., the Divine Liturgy of Our Father St. John Chrysostom) is a valid and licit Mass. Three of my siblings are of the Ruthenian Rite. They basically practice Orthodox ways while they are in Communion with the Church, and the Holy Father is their Pope. They are indeed Catholic.

What I was saying is that just because one of these Rites may practice a certain action within their liturgy does not mean that the action is ok. If the amount of modernistic bishops grew in number in the Holy See and in the USCCB, we would probably have a liturgy filled with liturgical dancing, rock music, and statues would probably be illicit. Just because the Latin Rite would have that liturgy would not make rock music reverent and “ok” for the Mass. The Carpo-Ruthenian Rite would not and should not add the rock music and call it “ok” just because the Latin Rite was doing it… it would still be wrong in the Latin Rite, Carpo-Ruthenian Rite, etc. even though it would be licit according to the odd GIRM that would come from such a situation. Now, we can trust that such a thing would never happen (though the GIRM is not infallible), but there could be things in the liturgy that would cause Christ to weep because they should not be in the liturgy.

If I was forced to receive on the hand, I don’t think I would receive Communion because that would go against my conscience–that is what would happen to me, personally (personal opinion).

Pax Domini tecum.

 

[JReducation]

Not saying it is evil or good but…

Just because one Rite does something a certain way does not mean that it is right, proper, pius, reverent, etc. That would not justify anything. Perhaps it is wrong entirely everywhere… you are correct in saying that it cannot be reverent in one place and absolutely evil in another (keeping in mind that it can be reverent in one right and less reverent in another without it ever being evil). You act as if an action cannot be evil if it is practiced in at least one of the rites… the GIRM and such are not infallible.

…and I couldn’t resist saying this, but, I can’t imagine St. Francis of Assisi receiving on the hand… it would be horrible if such a thing was done at that time in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

Pax Domini tecum.

Actually he did. But that is because there was an indult that was given to the Franciscans when the rule was approved that allowed the superior of the house to handle the Eucharist. That’s why you often see portraits of St. Clare with the monstrance. For centuries our friars and cloistered nuns have handled the Eucharist. But that’s another story.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

The Rites are approved by the Church: the Byzantine Carpo-Ruthenian Rite, the Byzantine Arminian Rite, etc. The individual Rites are Rites of the Catholic Church with Patriarchs who stand as Cardinals, Archeparchs who stand as Archbishops, Eparchs who stand as Bishops, and priests who stand as priests. You may receive Communion from them any time you wish. They are Rites of the Church (almost like Churches within the Church). There are in fact 21 Rites–I think that may include the Roman or Latin Rite, which is the largest of the Catholic Rites. They practice valid and licit liturgies. Their Divine Liturgy (e.g., the Divine Liturgy of Our Father St. John Chrysostom) is a valid and licit Mass. Three of my siblings are of the Ruthenian Rite. They basically practice Orthodox ways while they are in Communion with the Church, and the Holy Father is their Pope. They are indeed Catholic.

What I was saying is that just because one of these Rites may practice a certain action within their liturgy does not mean that the action is ok. If the amount of modernistic bishops grew in number in the Holy See and in the USCCB, we would probably have a liturgy filled with liturgical dancing, rock music, and statues would probably be illicit. Just because the Latin Rite would have that liturgy would not make rock music reverent and “ok” for the Mass. The Carpo-Ruthenian Rite would not and should not add the rock music and call it “ok” just because the Latin Rite was doing it… it would still be wrong in the Latin Rite, Carpo-Ruthenian Rite, etc. even though it would be licit according to the odd GIRM that would come from such a situation. Now, we can trust that such a thing would never happen (though the GIRM is not infallible), but there could be things in the liturgy that would cause Christ to weep because they should not be in the liturgy.

If I was forced to receive on the hand, I don’t think I would receive Communion because that would go against my conscience–that is what would happen to me, personally (personal opinion).

Pax Domini tecum.

Wait a minute, you are talking here only about the Easter Rites. There are Eastern Rites and Eastern Churches. The Eastern Rites are not churches withn the Church. That’s different. There are independent uniat Churches in communion with Rome. They are not rites. They have their own rites. But they also have autonomy. Their communion with Rome has to do with the authority and primacy of Peter, not with the liturgy. In regards to liturgy and sacraments they are autonomous. Some do not even have the same words of consecration as we do and are not required to have them. But their Eucharist is valid and legal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

What I was saying is that just because one of these Rites may practice a certain action within their liturgy does not mean that the action is ok. .

That’s still my question that I don’t understand.

You seem to be saying that a Catholic can follow a Rite of the Church and be wrong.

Is that correct? Thanks for any clarification (starting with yes or no would help).