Taking the Host by hand, disturbing?

[otm]

motorman:

The lack of respect and interest is what I have a problem with. This “Lack” in my opinion is the reason why 70% of catholics don’t believe in the real presence. In most places in the world you will not see communion in the hands. In these places you many more devout catholics with the greater part of the church population believeing in and understanding the real presence of Christ. I truly believe there is a direct corulation between the two.

In Christ
hoa

A study of the last 100 years of history, with a particular view of Europe and North America, would most likely reveal a whole list of reasons for lack of reverence. To put it in another way, I strongly suspect that those who lack reverence, and receive Communion in the hand, have drunk milk and coffee, or at least one of them, for a sustained period of time in their life. There is about as much correlation.

This thread is too short to go into all of that history, but given two World Wars, with the massive impact they had on the family; the increase in knowledge, both through the hugh upswing in college graduates post WW2 and the tremendous increase in speed of communication (accompanied by the continued dumbing down of information); the decision in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican/Episcopalian church to allow birth control (no major denomination allowed the use of birth control prior to this) and in general a breaking down of authority all lead to the 60’s, where authority everywhere was lost. Vatican 2 happened in the midst of this vast social upheaval. It was not Vatican 2 which caused the loss of respect for authority, but a whole series of things happening prior to that which did.

The net result was that the chaos that was close to full boil prior to Vatican 2 broke out not long after it. Part of the result was a dumbing down of catechesis; part was a rejection, on the part of many, of much of what the Church had taught for centuries, simply because everything else was being rejected at the same time. The proverbial baby was thrown out with the bath water.

The lack of respect is not why people do not believe in the Real Presence ; if anything, it is just the opposite. And I would challenge the 70% statistics. If you are going to quote old polls, then you need to do a bit more research. Part of that statistic lies in how the questions were asked; part of it lies in who the survey covered. Both served to skew the statistics.

The causes of why the Church is where it is are complex. Most people do not deal well with complex; it is too hard to understand. They want simple, and what they end up with instead is simplistic.

 

[yossarian]

otm:

That is how I always eat a slice of bread or a biscuit.

Most likely, if I am eating a biscuit

What does that have to do with Communion in the hand?

maybe I misunderstood your post, but what does a biscuit have to do with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

otm:

Then do as I do, and wash them before going to Mass. :dancing:

You just shook hands with some people at the sign of peace. hope you know where they’ve been and that they’ve washed before Mass.

 

[Evan]

Fr. JLT:

Historically, in the hand was the norm. I don’t recall which very early document it is, perhaps the Didache, where it is clearly described. The Holy Eucharist was to be received with one hand over the other, “so as to form a throne.” But remember that the Church was small and very strict at that time. As others began to infiltrate, some measures to protect the sanctity of the Sacrament were introduced.

The document you were looking for is newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

where St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes in his Catechetical Lectures

**21. In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

   22. Then after thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries. **

Fr. JLT:

Eventually, receiving under the appearence of wine was discontinued under most circumstances (and restored following Vatican II). There were very real and grave reasons for this. It is very easy to spill the Sacred Species, contaminate It, etc. Same with cultists swiping the Species of bread for desecration.

I’ve read that one of the reasons for restristing to the host only was that people began to believe that the host did not contain the entire body, blood, soul, and divinty of Christ, only the body of Christ, so to emphasize that, only the host was distributed since all is present in any particle of the host or drop of consecrated wine.

I see that same lack of belief appear in my parish, where, if someone does not receive both species they feel they have missed something!

 

[legeorge]

St. Cyril’s requirements sound completely beautiful and reverent, however I do not think that most people approach the Sacrament in this way. (At least not that I have seen) There is a great lack of reverence in many places in the world (especially America). This makes the receiving of the Eucharist in the hand seem to be sinful or irreverant. I don’t think most of us would be bothered if we saw our neighbors approaching the Eucharist in the fashion of St. Cyril. However, given the weak faith of many Catholics these days, the overuse of extraordinary ministers, and a general lack of reverence across the board during Mass, I think most devout Catholics prefer to receive on the tongue. I know I do. I feel like that is the most reverent way for me to approach the Eucharist. Unfortunately, I know that receiving in the hand is the method most used by “cafeteria catholics” and since I do not wish to be perceived as such, I receive on the tongue. Perhaps this is the source of some of your discomfort, Exporter? Not wishing to be lumped together with the lukewarm? Maybe not, but that is somewhat what I have experienced. Of course, my opinion is probably not worth much. Just thought this was a very interesting thread.

 

[otm]

yossarian:

maybe I misunderstood your post, but what does a biscuit have to do with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

You have to go back and read his enitre post; it should be self explanatory.

You just shook hands with some people at the sign of peace. hope you know where they’ve been and that they’ve washed before Mass.

Most of the people I am around look and smell like they have taken a bath recently. (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

I get really tired ot he “germs” routine. I might be able to accept it if someone had a serious immunity problem (on chemotherapy, or HIV or Aids infected, e.g.). Most people don’t; and most who fuss about it are hypochondriacs. So you want the alternative, that the priest, deacon or EMHC place the host on your tongue? OK, I was an altar boy pre Vatican 2, and at almost every Communion, Father would end up drawing a string of spit off someone’s tongue. It is almost physically impossible to put something in someone’s mouth repeatedly and not have the back of their finger come in contact with the communicant’s tongue, or lips, or teeth. Thank you, I would prefer that they didn’t.

As altar boys, we always had a small cloth over out left arm, which Father would use to wipe his fingers of saliva. I’ve noticed that the servers no longer carry that in the churches I’ve attended where most of the communicants receive on the tongue.

And yes, I receive from the chalice, and yes, someone else had their lips on it, and yes, that spot was wiped, and no, I haven’t gotten sick from it.

 

[yossarian]

otm,

my overreaction is noted. apologies for the misunderstanding on my part.

I don’t have a problem with the germ thing either, really. I receive on the tongue and also from the chalice (with exception if I’m not feeling well) and have never gotten sick from it.

For me, it’s a matter of reverence. I guarantee there are people who receive in their hands who are more worthy than I and get more graces from it than I, and that probably has something to do with my decision. At daily Mass, I genuflect, not kneel. If I’m at a parish where I see people kneel, I will too. This is not because I am being self righteous, but because I think I am more unworthy to recieve. If that makes any sense. maybe to some people it does.

The point should be that the Church teaches it is ok to receive both ways, so regardless of popular or unpopular opinion, it is up to the individual to decide how they do, so long as they have examined their consciounse and can do so worthily. but that’s a subject for another thread…

 

[Servant1]

HagiaSophia:

It was certainly the practice in the early church and frankly I find it much easier in the hand and much more sanitary for the priest.
No one has ever successfully explained to me why the tongue is holier than the hand. I’m afraid I just don’t understand their objections.

And the tongue is **most certainly ** not cleaner than the hand! If touching the Body with something contaminated with dirty things is bad, we’d hold it in our hands forever RATHER than put it in our mouths/on our tongues.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This all started to be allowed while I was “away” from the Church for a while. When I came back I saw what strange things some people were doing! I didn’t receive in the hands, not because I was too holy but because I was never actually instructed for many years until once I listened to a sermon where the priest “reminded” everybody how to do it properly.

About that time I read a pamphlet somebody had left in the adoration chapel about how disgraceful it was that lay ministers were allowed to touch Communion and how the Church was going to hell over it, etc. etc.

For years I decided to receive in the hands when it was not from a priest, but continued to receive on the tongue from a priest. Now I usually get it in the hand, especially after a strange experience a few weeks ago when I held out my tongue and a priest stuck the host between my hands anyway – I don’t know why; he wasn’t doing it to other people. For now, until I get over that experience I’ll receive exclusively in the hand.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

HagiaSophia:

As far as I know, intinction is strictly forbidden and in our diocese is a practice, which when reported, is brought to a halt.

intinction is permitted, self-communication is not,
if the priest dips the sacred host into the precious blood, and then places it upon the tongue of the communicant, this is permitted and even preferred to the common practice of drinking from the common chalice. What is forbidden is the communicant taking the host and dipping it into the chalice himself and then eating it.

Many early fathers discuss reverently receiving communion in the hand, including Augustine and Cyprian, but the practice was ended for many reasons, one of which was abuse of not swallowing the host right away, but keeping it for devotional or profane purposes.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

ByzCath:

This is utter nonsense.

To say this is to be ignorate of history.

The practice of Communion in Hand is something that was done in the early Church.

Can you show me documentation for this statement?

I used to receive in my hand and I figured that the Apostles did. But then I realized, they were Apostles. It was only right that they distribute the body they received from Jesus himself.

I no longer receive in the hand.

 

[brockmac]

As a matter of humble obedience, I will not question the wisdom of Holy Mother, the Church in allowing people the option of receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour in their hands.

I will however state that out of a sence of humility I choose to receive on my tongue, not judging my hands worthy to handle My Lord’s Body and Blood. That said I am also aware that the preist or extraordinary minister who is receiving is no more worthy than I am to handle the Sacred Species but they must do so out of necessity.

I will also say that I am concerned with a lack of reverence for Our Lord’s Body and Blood and I think that a better remedy for this problem would be to emphasize and encourage Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist. If people, myself included, would spend just one hour a week praying before the Lord in the Eucharist, our understanding and faith in the miracle of this most holy Sacrement would no doubt increase.

Also, I would love to see alter servers begin to use patens again as I did when I served less than 25 years ago. That really drove home a belief in the Real Presence.

 

[tulipelb]

You say you are not here to judge me, and then in the same sentance you say you are here to “clarify things for people like me”. And that is not a judgement??? If not, pray tell what you mean by “people like me”.
(People like you) it means people who doesn’t know how precious the presence of the Host inside the church it means the real presence of God in the Host!! because if you know how precious it is you will refuse to take it by hand!
yess i feel responsible to clarify why the Host must be taken directly by tongue and not by hand, to people like you whom they don’t know how to deal in a proper way with Host! in a descent way!
JG

 

[tulipelb]

By this logic, we should deny everyone Communion. Satanism didn’t start at about the same time as Vatican 2. As noted in an above post, it is entirely possible to receive on the tongue and remove the Host, if one wishes to commit a sacrilige.

If one wishes to be secretive, in fact, and do such act, receiving on the tongue is more likely to be a successful means of taking a Host. Once it is in the hand, reception or non-reception becomes more obvious. If you wish to sneak, what better way than to appear pious, receive on the tongue, and then put your hands up to your mouth in a pious folded position and eject the Host into your hand? It is a much more simple and secure proceedure than receiving in the hand and then having to consume the Host where all can see.

well definately you are arguying just to be opposite! why it is so hard for you to take Host directly by tongue??
can you tell me why?
JG

 

[tulipelb]

OTM:

By this logic, we should deny everyone Communion. Satanism didn’t start at about the same time as Vatican 2. As noted in an above post, it is entirely possible to receive on the tongue and remove the Host, if one wishes to commit a sacrilige.
If one wishes to be secretive, in fact, and do such act, receiving on the tongue is more likely to be a successful means of taking a Host. Once it is in the hand, reception or non-reception becomes more obvious. If you wish to sneak, what better way than to appear pious, receive on the tongue, and then put your hands up to your mouth in a pious folded position and eject the Host into your hand? It is a much more simple and secure proceedure than receiving in the hand and then having to consume the Host where all can see.

OTM

well definately you are arguying just to be opposite! why it is so hard for you to take Host directly by tongue??
can you tell me why?
JG

 

[tulipelb]

otm:

It’s true the HOST will stay 24 hours inside our body and please go and clarify this subject with your Priest and he will confirm what i said.
JG

I have and he didn’t, as well as other sources. Sorry, but when the Host is no longer identifiable, it is considered theologically that the Real Presence is no longer there. If you wish confimation of what the Chruch teaches on the matter, do some research as to how corrupted Hosts are handled.otm

OTM, you have to do the research … and not me! my knoweledges are much wider than yours and it’s not my personal opinion it’s something confirmed by a priest and the priest is coming from a church ! and if i have a personal opinion it will certainely much the opinion of the church and it came from my faith and beleives wich are strong more than a rock!!
well if you don’t agree that we have to be respectfull with the Host and taking it in a descent way directly by tongue, it’s your problem! and by the way till now you haven’t gave a reason why you prefer to take it by hand??? as a descent catholic who beleive in the Holy presence of God in the Host hei???
it seems u just like to argue that’s all… at least don’t mess with this important subject (the HOST) ! try to find another subject to simplify it…
JG

 

[tee_eff_em]

tulipelb:

OTM, you have to do the research … and not me! my knoweledges are much wider than yours and it’s not my personal opinion it’s something confirmed by a priest and the priest is coming from a church ! and if i have a personal opinion it will certainely much the opinion of the church and it came from my faith and beleives wich are strong more than a rock!!
well if you don’t agree that we have to be respectfull with the Host and taking it in a descent way directly by tongue, it’s your problem!
[ad hominem attack elided]
it seems u just like to argue that’s all… at least don’t mess with this important subject (the HOST) ! try to find another subject to simplify it…
JG

So you have such wide knowledge but you won’t share it? Thanks a lot!

Oh, you can spout off “facts”, but without support, those “facts” are meaningless. And the support of “a priest” just isn’t enough – I know “a priest” who doesn’t give a fig if a “married” couple is contracepting or if they are divorced and “remarried”; I know “a priest” who started a new church in defiance of his bishop; I know “a priest” who is accused of sexual misconduct with young men; I could go on and on with the list of "a priest"s I know…

Do you really want to appeal to the support of “a priest”!?!? I prefer the teachings of “The Church”!

For instance, the Church uses the word “HOST” twice in her catechism, neither time referring to the bread consecrated at Mass (rather, it is used in the sense of “a crowd”). The Church prefers terms like Eucharist, Eucharistic species, the body, et cetera. The catechism says nothing about the particular method to receive the Eucharist, neither on the tongue, nor in the hand, nor by a golden spoon, nor by a straw.

Oh. The catechism also says this:

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.

Now: Would you like to support your declaration that the ““HOST”” subsists in the body for 24 hours? When we should expect it to do so for only about 15 minutes?

tee

 

[tulipelb]

Well TEE, the priest which i’m talking about is a very Holy Priest and the Holy Spirit is talking thru him! in fact our Priests here are all a great priests and they are very deep in church knoweledges and spiritually wide!
so yess i can count on him his not a regualr priest he is always do briefing and discussions on TV the channel called (tele lumiere) if u are connected to the satellite check it.
and about priests which you mentionned not so holy let me remind you what Jesus said: Listen to their words and don’t do their acts !
so The Host or the Eucharist or The Body and Blood of our Jesus all these names mean the same! so don’t be prediculious…
tell me why we do adoration for the eucharist why we do prayers and novena and why the Pope recommend that we pray the rosary in the presence of The eucharist it’s so strong in that way! hei? can you answer that… well because the eucharist is so precious for us we human so we have to deal with it with the most proper descent way OK!
please you and all the catholic wich they are receiving the host by hands stopped doing that and be gratfull by taking directly by tongue listen to the holy spirit each time the eucharist enetr your body and soul and open your heart so you will find why we ar easking to take it by tongue than you will see the difference.
it’s the same while we kneel in the presence of eucharist it;s the same when we enter the church to say hello to the eucharist or to attend mass we have to be descent with our clothes, we are visiting Our Holy God! and so and so…
finally it’s related to your faith how much is strong, to your beleives how much are important to you and to your attachement and closiness to Our Holy Father how much is precious to you … all these is the way how you behave towards the Eucharist ! that’s it discussions finished!
JG

 

[pnewton]

Section 1377 of the CCC quoted states that the host remains the body of Christ only as long as the host subsists. This has been addressed many times on CA Live as meaning as long as it maintains the appearance of bread. Exactly how long this takes is a matter of science as opposed to faith. Fifteen minutes seems far more reasonable than 24 hours.

 

[tee_eff_em]

tulipelb:

[Wow! elided – tee_eff_em]

that’s it discussions finished!
JG

That’s a relief (though somehow unsurprising)!

I don’t care how spiritual your priest is, unless he is a trained nutritionist, medical doctor, or otherwise expert, it is useless to appeal to his authority in the area of digestion.

And your *ad hominem * attack upon me is both ugly and unfounded. Whatever makes you think I receive in the hand, you are quite mistaken – I receive on the tongue (not that I need justify myself to you). However, I am willing to allow others to receive as the Church has allowed them to do so, while you seem not to be.

tee

 

[kmktexas]

However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

The problem is that in most parishes this (extra care and avoiding all possible risk of profanation) is not routinely done. Few parishes even use a patten anymore (even though it’s required) and not once, since they Church allowed Communion in the Hand have I heard any instruction given on how to reverently receive Communion in the Hand. That Catechisis is REQUIRED in order to use the Indult I have belonged to more than a dozen parishes since the Indult and attended Mass at 40 or more different Churches. The only Cathecisis I ever heard for Reception was given to the First Communion class - by me, since I was teaching the class!

For those who really want to defend reception in the hand: before you get all historical and scripturally defensive, make sure that things are being done correctly, with proper instruction in your own parish. In most, they are not.