Taking Communion in the hand or the mouth

[japhy]

I have, alas. Also “Pope Wojtilla” and even “Pope Pacelli”.

I don’t think the Rorate Coeli blog has such an agenda, but frequently this is used by sedevacantists.

It’s nothing so sinister. It’s a common Italian way of referring to the pope. Papa Ratzinger.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I think the Church should make CITH as normative as COTT worldwide so some won’t have the “indult” excuse.

 

[japhy]

I think the Church should make CITH as normative as COTT worldwide so some won’t have the “indult” excuse.

I really don’t expect that Communion in the hand will become a normative (that is, non-indulted) practice in the Roman Rite. I certainly don’t get that impression from reading Memoriale Domini, although to be honest, the indult permitting it is a lot more widespread than I would expect from reading that document.

(What do you mean by people having “the ‘indult’ excuse”? Do you mean people using the fact that Communion in the hand is permitted by indult to argue that Communion on the tongue is better than Communion in the hand?)

 

[Brendan]

I really don’t expect that Communion in the hand will become a normative (that is, non-indulted) practice in the Roman Rite.

Especially since CITH is not practiced for the majority of the world’s Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

Isn’t communion in the hand a form of self-communicating, which is prohibited? I read the rules but it doesn’t seem like having a minister around really changes this. If a minister hands you a gun to shoot yourself, you are still committing the suicide, aren’t you?

This is the source but I’m questioning it.

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=130

 

[japhy]

Isn’t communion in the hand a form of self-communicating, which is prohibited? I read the rules but it doesn’t seem like having a minister around really changes this.

The Church says it’s not, and that being administered Holy Communion by a minister does matter.

If a minister hands you a gun to shoot yourself, you are still committing the suicide, aren’t you?

That’s a terrible analogy; I’m sure you could have thought of a less distasteful one.

Shooting yourself to death is suicide, and having someone do it for you makes them an accomplice in your suicide (unless I’m mistaken on the finer points of civil law). However, according to ecclesiastical law, self-communication involves taking the Host or Chalice from Its resting place to administer it to yourself:
Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another. (Inaestimabile Donum 9)
Only a priest may pick a Chalice up from the altar and drink from it; anyone else (including a deacon) must be presented with the Chalice by another minister of Holy Communion. Likewise, only a priest may take the Host and consume it on his own; anyone else (including a deacon) must be presented with the Host by another minister of Holy Communion.

You can’t define “self-communication” differently from the Church and then argue against the practice using that fallacious definition.

P.S. Self-communication was actually considered as a licit form of receiving Communion in the hand in the letter accompanying Memoriale Domini. Thanks be to God it was ruled out.
4. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister’s part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, “The Body of Christ,” to which the communicant replies: “Amen.”

 

[benedictgal]

Let me share with y’all a portion of an interview that Antonio Cardinal Canizares, the new Prefect for the CDWDS, said regarding the reception of Holy Communion:

There is no resolution that forbids giving Communion in the mouth. In the same way, there is no norm that forbids Communion in the hand. Neither can be forbidden. Neither one nor the other. This means that Communion in the mouth has a long history and tradition that expresses in a profound way the sense of adoration, reverence in the presence of the body of Christ. Everything that is at stake in the real presence of Christ. If Communion in the mouth goes with the gesture of kneeling, it expresses in a stronger way, with stronger force, the real presence of Christ, the sense of adoration, the participation in the body of Christ that offers Himself for us.

If the papal liturgy is a sign, an indication for all the Church, we should promote Communion kneeling and in the mouth. But, this does not mean not permitting or forbidding Communion in the hand if it is done with due respect. With a previous gesture of adoration. This could be kneeling, or a genuflection or with a deep bow. And also in the moment of receiving Communion, the right hand should be placed under the left hand forming a cross expressing in this way the recognition of the real presence of the body of Christ offered for us. We should take care that no particle should be lost. And the body of Christ should be received in front of the priest.

We should recognise that frequently Communion in the hand many times is not received in this way.

It is very lamentable.

I believe that his comments are very telling.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s a terrible analogy; I’m sure you could have thought of a less distasteful one.

Yes, but it wouldn’t have had the same impact.

Good and lengthy try on your part, but as I said, I’ve read the rules on this and, since the definition isn’t infallible, I don’t have to buy it and I don’t. To me placing something in your own mouth is self-feeding. You decide when and if it enters your mouth. And if it’s communion we’re talking about, then it’s self-communicating. Certainly you can see the difference between spoon feeding a baby and have him feed himself later in life, can’t you? Whether you left him the food or he got it himself really doesn’t matter, does it? He still feeds himself when he decides to do it not you. He’s self-feeding.

 

[japhy]

since the definition isn’t infallible, I don’t have to buy it and I don’t.

I don’t think this is exactly a matter of “faith and morals”; you’ll never see the infallible declaration you demand from the Church.

To me placing something in your own mouth is self-feeding. You decide when and if it enters your mouth.

The Church clearly distinguishes now, as she did centuries and centuries ago, between taking the Eucharistic species yourself (which she calls self-communication) and receiving the Eucharistic species from a minister. (In the Liturgy of St. James, Communion is received in the hand by rubric.)

Don’t get me wrong: I think Communion in the hand in the Latin Rite is an imprudent concession; I think it was gained treacherously, implemented poorly, and glorified unjustly to the detriment of receiving on the tongue. But I’m not going to use my own definitions to argue a point.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I don’t think this is exactly a matter of “faith and morals”; you’ll never see the infallible declaration you demand from the Church.

The Church clearly distinguishes now, as she did centuries and centuries ago, between taking the Eucharistic species yourself (which she calls self-communication) and receiving the Eucharistic species from a minister. (In the Liturgy of St. James, Communion is received in the hand by rubric.)

Don’t get me wrong: I think Communion in the hand in the Latin Rite is an imprudent concession; I think it was gained treacherously, implemented poorly, and glorified unjustly to the detriment of receiving on the tongue. But I’m not going to use my own definitions to argue a point.

I wish more people would do that…

 

[trish2009]

When Jesus was breaking the bread and passing it out to His disciples, He said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it.” The fact that the disciples took the Eucharist in their own hands makes communion in the hand logical and totally acceptable. I’ve seen people receive the Eucharist in the hand very reverently, and I’ve seen people literally throw it into their mouths like a potato chip (). It’s all in how you approach Him in the sacrament.

I believe that on Holy Thursday, when Jesus did this, the apostles were considered priests.

 

[Brendan]

I believe that on Holy Thursday, when Jesus did this, the apostles were considered priests.

Not only priests, but bishops.

Priest and Bishop may TAKE the Eucharist ( as in “Take and Eat”) the laity cannot.

As you pointed out, we should not read too much into the Last Supper narative as applying to the laity.

Because if we did, the “do this in remembrance of me”, the very command to represent the Last Supper, would also apply to the laity. That would mean that we would not need priests at all at Mass. We just confect everything ourselves individually.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, but it wouldn’t have had the same impact.

Good and lengthy try on your part, but as I said, I’ve read the rules on this and, since the definition isn’t infallible, I don’t have to buy it and I don’t. To me placing something in your own mouth is self-feeding. You decide when and if it enters your mouth. And if it’s communion we’re talking about, then it’s self-communicating. Certainly you can see the difference between spoon feeding a baby and have him feed himself later in life, can’t you? Whether you left him the food or he got it himself really doesn’t matter, does it? He still feeds himself when he decides to do it not you. He’s self-feeding.

If CITH feels like self-communication to you, then don’t do it. You feel what you feel, and COTT is your right.

Still, I do not get your point. In every case, we each receive Holy Communion when the minister decides it is our turn. When you receive COTT, you decide when to open your mouth. I have never, ever heard of a priest standing their holding the host back and not giving it to someone, on the grounds that he decides when you get it. If one of us were not ready, though, like we felt a cough coming on, certainly we’d turn our head away until we got collected. So we do have control over when receive, not that we’d exercise it for a trivial reason, in either case. Those who do not consume the host in the minister’s presence immediately after CITH are being improper, as would be someone who was careless about allowing the minister to get his hand back before closing the mouth when receiving COTT. (Not rare: “Red snappers” was what a priest friend of mine used to call the lipstick-wearing offenders.)

As for the attitude that one does not care about those things that the Church does not define infallibly: Heaven forbid! The Church does teach that the bishops alone have the authority to define the rubrics of the Mass, do they not? What they loose here is loosed in Heaven, and what they hold bound is likewise held bound. CITH is not held bound, but has been loosed. It is the teaching of the Church that Heaven shall back them up. I could not tell you if that is “infallible”, strictly speaking, but I cannot imagine why that would not be not definitive enough for you?

 

[ProVobis]

If CITH feels like self-communication to you, then don’t do it. You feel what you feel, and COTT is your right.

If it feels like?

Maybe we’re playing a game of semantics here and I don’t want to seem crude, but stealing from you in case of hunger is still stealing from you; you’re out the money. Same way for abortions except in cases of rape and incest, it’s still abortion. If you miss Mass on Sundays because you don’t feel well, you’re still missing Mass. If you hurt someone but didn’t mean to, that person is still hurt. Should I go on?

Maybe there are mitigating circumstances and maybe you don’t need to confess it, I’ll concede on that point, but, though the minister is the expeditor, CITH is self-communicating. As is communion by drinking from the cup the way it is practiced, by the way. This should be obvious.

Boy, it’s difficult to keep up with all these threads on the same subject both here and on the Traditional forum.

 

[Hotchkiss]

If it feels like?

Maybe we’re playing a game of semantics here and I don’t want to seem crude, but stealing from you in case of hunger is still stealing from you; you’re out the money. Same way for abortions except in cases of rape and incest, it’s still abortion. If you miss Mass on Sundays because you don’t feel well, you’re still missing Mass. If you hurt someone but didn’t mean to, that person is still hurt. Should I go on?

Maybe there are mitigating circumstances and maybe you don’t need to confess it, I’ll concede on that point, but, though the minister is the expeditor, CITH is self-communicating. As is communion by drinking from the cup the way it is practiced, by the way. This should be obvious.

Boy, it’s difficult to keep up with all these threads on the same subject both here and on the Traditional forum.

*You’re wrong. * You’re pushing a personal notion that runs contrary to the Catholic Church.

The Church does not allow anyone to take communion (“self-communication”) except bishops and priests. The Church DOES allow CITH for everyone able to receive communion. You do the math.

It’s remarkable how some people place themselves ahead of the Church in defining different matters and then using their self-cobbled definitions to support their own notions – even when they run contrary to the Church.

 

[estesbob]

If it feels like?

Maybe we’re playing a game of semantics here and I don’t want to seem crude, but stealing from you in case of hunger is still stealing from you; you’re out the money. Same way for abortions except in cases of rape and incest, it’s still abortion. If you miss Mass on Sundays because you don’t feel well, you’re still missing Mass. If you hurt someone but didn’t mean to, that person is still hurt. Should I go on?

Maybe there are mitigating circumstances and maybe you don’t need to confess it, I’ll concede on that point, but, though the minister is the expeditor, CITH is self-communicating. As is communion by drinking from the cup the way it is practiced, by the way. This should be obvious.

Boy, it’s difficult to keep up with all these threads on the same subject both here and on the Traditional forum.

Are you a cafeteira catholic?

It would appear so from reading your posts. On the one hand you have chosen to embrace the Church teaching that we should not self communicate. OTH you reject the Church teachng the CITh is not self communicating.

What other teahcings of the Church are we free to reject beauces they dont fit our personal opinons on the way things should be?