Taking the Host by hand, disturbing?

[Mysty101]

and you are which side???
JG

I can also see both sides of the question, and appreciate their points. I personally receive in the hand, but understand the other side. I do not like distributing on the tongue, since many times the tongue or lips have touched my fingers, which makes then stick to the next host–a host could easily fall because of this.

SuZ

 

[pnewton]

Mysty101:

Gunner,
Anyone can say whatever they want, but since there is an option, people have the right to choose. There are so many wrong choices made when there is no option, why worry about something approved by the Church?

Amen!

My only concern is when I notice one Catholic “bullying” others to his position. I also fear that either position can be a source of pride and spiritual superiority. I have experienced both of these.

 

[Marie]

and you are which side???
JG

The side that follows the Norm, not my own preference, (which btw is on the Tongue) But in the hand is just as viable and just as reverent. I receive from the priest if possible. But I do not spin my spiritual wheels putting down those who prefer the hand. Same with receiving the Precious Blood. I receive the Precious Blood, but do not spin my wheels worrying if others who by pass it offended Christ. They have received the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Host.

The constant grinding out of views from the pews, is just one more attack by the enemy on Holy Mother Church. And most of all I follow the Norm’s set out by the Pastor (not an assoc. Pastor) of a particular parish.

For this young priest to stretch his sermon to castigate those who receive in the hand is absolutely not building up the faith of anyone.

After many years of watching the fray, I find it plants subtle seeds of doubt, as to the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That is all it does. It does not make a Saint of anyone.

Over Zealousness is as horrific and damaging to the faith as the liberal Lukewarm. When it attacks the faith practice of another, and causes them spiritual harm, it wounds the very “Heart of Christ.”

 

[Mysty101]

In the US either the tongue or hand is acceptable. There is an option stated in the norms.from GIRM
**
**
Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:
The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another.** The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.** Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

from RS
**

90.

“The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined,” with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.”176

91. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.”177 Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

92. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. 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.179

**

 

[Teresa9]

Dear friend

Distribution of Holy Communion
This adaptation will take the place of number 160, paragraph 2:
The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another.

Can you confrim what this means ‘hand them on to one another’ ?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Mysty101]

Can you confrim what this means ‘hand them on to one another’

If the first person took the Chalice or ciborium and either took a host or sip of the Precious Blood and passed the vessel to the next person and so on, rather than having a minister distribute Holy Communion.

SuZ

 

[Marie]

tee_eff_em:

My impression is that the imposition of intinction for this purpose is not permitted? (But I can’t lay hands on sources at the moment – Can anyone clarify? Thanks)

tee

Only a priest may dip the host for intinction. A lay person may not nor can an EME.

 

[workinprogress]

I read that because Jesus did not allow Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection but he allowed Thomas to, that only the priest, as having some of the authority to do what bishops can do, can touch Jesus with their hands. Then you have members of another tribe than the Levis touching the ark of the covenant and being killed. Of course, the Ark represents Mary, but you get the point–ministerial priests could only touch it. Before Jesus’s sacrifice, only ministerial Jewish priests could enter the Holy of Holies. The Eucharist can enter us but priests were still meant to be the only handlers. In the Latin mass, it described Christ’s hands as venerable. In the mass, the consecrated hands (unlike ours) of the priest (in persona Christi) are thus, venerable and should b e distinguished symbolically as such. Also, with all the other radical “reforms” not intended by Vatican 2 or its Fathers, came laypeople receiving on the hand. It was a fake antiquism–more like a symbolic deconstructionism. Read “Ugly as Sin”. I got some of these ideas from that book and other EWTN sources and developed those ideas but don’t hold them as truths, but insights to consider.
Choirs (representing angels) facing the congregation, priests (representing Christ) facing the congregation—it engenders Pride and so it reaped what it sowed/it did its job. How dare they turn their backs on us, important people that we are, we think! Christ is one with us! He’s one of the gang! (Wrong! He is a human but he is one of the 3 persons of God as well) What if God was one of us? I think we decided some decades ago and the priest now is made to represent that alternate reality of Christ–along with no altar rails and priests casually walking amongst the congregation and even sitting amongst them. Sure, Christ may have been that casual at times, but not at the Last Supper, which the Church represents. Only the first bishops got that close then. They held Jesus’s body in the Eucharist; into noone else’s hands did it go then. Why change it? Yeah, communion in the hand was ok then, but more reverent forms of receiving Christ were conceived. Why give God hamburger for reverence when you could give him steak?

Finally, as an anecdote, before the sign of peace, people are coughing and sneezing in their hands, wiping their noses, touching pews and liturgy/song books that might have been touched by others’ emissions of possible sickness. Do you want to consume anything placed on, picked up and/or placed to the lips by a hand that could have touched any of that? A priest’s hand, which was not used to shake the hands of the congregation members and which is used to place Jesus on our tounges touches none of that. That comforts me.

 

[pnewton]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

Yeah, communion in the hand was ok then, but more reverent forms of receiving Christ were conceived. Why give God hamburger for reverence when you could give him steak?

Receiving Christ on the toungue is not steak and in the hand hamburger. A humble and contrite heart is the proper way to receive Christ. When one finds this more easily accompished by receiving on the tongue, then that is the best way. I find a proper since of humility and reverence far easier when I receive in my hand.

As to the references from scripture, neither was it allowed to touch the Ark with ones tongue. And the sense of the scripture where Mary is told not to touch Jesus is that she shouldn’t cling to him. (Thomas was invited to touch him). Jesus was touched before the crucifiction and he was just as divine.

 

[workinprogress]

Receiving Christ on the toungue is not steak and in the hand hamburger. A humble and contrite heart is the proper way to receive Christ.

I meant to say a hamburger sign of reverence. We are human and express ourselves through symbols and symbolism. One might do the symbolism with no feeling but one with feeling is best expressing onesself through the best symbols and symbolism possible. Just because hypocrites ape the signs of devotion of pious people and some abuse the signs does not mean it’s time to scrap the traditional signs of piety–especially ones developed to combat Pride and to foster awe of the Holy Eucharist. This unfortunate scrapping of traditional signs or “updating” signs of reverence, even to a higher position than traditional ones, like the Latin mass, was unfortunately done. Where has the piety in novus ordo parishes gone since the 60s, because I see people leaving the Church, leaving mass earkly, talking during mass, etc.?
When you are on your knees receiving Christ, you are looking up (human symbol of humility and being below some higher authority–for ex., we say we look up to someone) to Christ descending upon us as administered by one who is in persona christi. Maybe God did not literally ask that of us, but it is natural for people to show their lowliness that way.

When one finds this more easily accompished by receiving on the tongue, then that is the best way. I find a proper since of humility and reverence far easier when I receive in my hand.
How so?

As to the references from scripture, neither was it allowed to touch the Ark with ones tongue.
I was referring to ministerial priests only touching it. Jesus’s sacrifice made it possible for us to enter it (or it enter us), but only at the hands of the ministerial priest. Only the future bishops touched his body at the Last Supper with their hands.

And the sense of the scripture where Mary is told not to touch Jesus is that she shouldn’t cling to him. (Thomas was invited to touch him). Jesus was touched before the crucifiction and he was just as divine.
I didn’t make my hermeneutics about that one up. That I learned from a credible source like EWTN, Adoremus or somethbing like that. Others touched Jesus before the crucifixion but not in a sacramental way like at the Last Supper. Some different rules were in play after his resurrection obviously or he would have mentioned that when being mishandled before his death. Nevertheless, I think you are taking things out of context. I believe my scripture quotes have coherence. Receiving in the hand is not impious or irreverent, but the Church evolved gradually to what it was up till the 60s. In fact, I don’t believe anything has officially deevolved—only pastoral changes uncalled for by Vatican 2 or both of its Popes made it seem deevolved. The spirituality and faith of millions of Catholics since then probably officially deevolved since then (see the bottom of my first paragraph and consider how many Catholics vote Democrat despite the unborn babies dying under the 4th Reich) because some clergy wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater (most likely just because there were priests saying the mass too quickly–something that could have been adjusted while most priests, theologians, bishops and laypeople still listened to their superiors).

---

 

[pnewton]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

When one finds this more easily accompished by receiving on the tongue, then that is the best way. I find a proper since of humility and reverence far easier when I receive in my hand.
How so?

I just do. I can try to quantify it but I am just guessing. Maybe I was raised where sticking one’s tongue out was a sign of disrespect. Maybe it is because of the associtation of some who receive this way who think they are more holy. Maybe because it is easier to keep my head bowed as I receive. I was grew up thinking a bowed head is a sign of humility.

I do not claim that my point of view in this is rational, but it is easier for me to maintain a proper sense of humility while receiving in my hand. There may be others in this culture that have similar reasons. It doesn’t matter because both methods are allowed.

As to the scriptures, neither you or I are the divine interpreters of scripture. (I was only echoing somthing I heard on Catholic Answers as to the “cling to me” idea). Our bishops, however, are in that position and they do not think that these, or any, scriptures can be stretched to mean we should not touch the Eucharist with our hand.

 

[Teresa9]

Mysty101:

If the first person took the Chalice or ciborium and either took a host or sip of the Precious Blood and passed the vessel to the next person and so on, rather than having a minister distribute Holy Communion.

SuZ

Dear friend

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, that was very kind of you and it clarified it for me.

As others have said, neither way is wrong as both are permitted, so it is personal preference at the end of the day and whichever way we choose is no reflection on a persons holiness. Holiness is love and reverance to God, but it is also how we live our lives and treat each other.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you all

Teresa

 

[workinprogress]

Sorry PNewton. I was being a jerk. I just like that old time religion–it’s good enough for me (and I wasn’t bornm then. I don’t think I have taken the NO mass for granted because I fell away for a while and then came back to like it again–until clapping for the new altar boy and other new silly things got introduced. I like that I can always go to a Latin mass or a NO that favors receiving on the toungue because I know, unless they are ultratraditionalists, it’s all good (no funny stuff). BTW the 1970 mkissal would be nice here if translated right. Oddly, people whine when the Pope tries to change the wrong translations.

 

[John_of_Woking]

SPOKENWORD:

Jesus saw no problem with passing the bread to his disciples. He didnt say sorry you have to go wash your hands. Having dirty hands doesnt make us dirty. Its what comes out of our mouths that make us dirty.

He passed consecrated bread. His very own body,blood, soul and divinity.

 

[Mysty101]

Teresa9:

Dear friend

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, that was very kind of you and it clarified it for me.

As others have said, neither way is wrong as both are permitted, so it is personal preference at the end of the day and whichever way we choose is no reflection on a persons holiness. Holiness is love and reverance to God, but it is also how we live our lives and treat each other.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you all

Teresa

Not sure I understand you. Do you understand that we are not allowed to pass the Ciborium or Chalice from one to another? Holy Communion under either species must be distributed by a minister or EMHC.

 

[Teresa9]

Mysty101:

Not sure I understand you. Do you understand that we are not allowed to pass the Ciborium or Chalice from one to another? Holy Communion under either species must be distributed by a minister or EMHC.

Dear Mysty

I certainly do understand. I meant you can receive the Host either on your tongue or in your hand and both of those is ok from an EMCH or a Priest. I’ve been Catholic all my life (33 years) that doesn’t mean I know ALL about my faith, I am not a Canon lawyer, though was a civil one , but I know we are not to grab the chalice or paten off the emhc and pass it between ourselves and help ourselves this way, I asked for your clarification on the passage you typed in an earlier post in respect of the passing on of the chalice because in the reading of it is wasn’t clear what it meant. Though in a subsequent post you have clarified what that particular piece of text you quoted was pertaining to.

Thank you for your help.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[workinprogress]

I found a site on topic that allows one to find passages in the Douay-Rheims Bible by word. I hope it’s not illegal to post this copy and remind me if it is not permissable to do so according to the rules. I’ve had to delete a couple quotes because of too many words I think the site is this:

---

tldm.org/news6/holy-ones.htm

What the holy ones say about receiving Jesus…



"There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it."

• His Holiness Pope John Paul II, responding to a reporter from *Stimme des glaubens *magazine, during his visit to Fulda (Germany) in November 1980.

http://www.tldm.org/News6/PaulVI-3.GIFHoly Communion received on the tongue "signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist … provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence … is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.… It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

- Pope Paul VI in his instruction *Memoriale Domini *(May 29, 1969)
​

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

• As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his 1989 Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York. When Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” without pausing a second she gave the above reply. She stated that to her knowledge, all of her sisters receive Communion only on the tongue.

"There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular… Why—for God’s sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it."

- Dietrich von Hildebrand (called a “20th century doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII),

in an article entitled “Communion in the Hand should be Rejected,” November 8, 1973.
​

 

[workinprogress]

This is not to say that receiving on the hand makes you susceptible to falling to temptation or something and maybe it has some significance for some. I think though, there was a good reason, offered by the Holy Spirit, for going from reception from one’s own hand to reception upon one’s own tongue and we should look into why. After all, some very important Church people think so also. Maybe reception on the tongue has some spiritual benefit that trumps what spiritual benefits one gets from receiving on the hand but it was just overshadowed by abuses of superspeed masses and by just taking something you have grown up with for granted (though I grew up with reception on the tongue and these holy people aren’t singing its praises thus it could be something deeper], still the abuses of post-Vatican 2 and taking how I grew up receiving Jesus may still play a more superficial cognitive role).

 

[Jade]

I’d like to share this story:

My priest is from Korea and some years back, he was imprisoned for quite some time. When his prision gaurds found out he was a priest, his they decided it would be fun to deny him, and all the other catholic’s for that matter, contained within the prison, the sacrement of Holy Communion. Months passed and then one day, another prisioner, another priest, it turns out, was in charge of disributing the food to the rest of the prisioners. He came to know who was catholic and who wasn’t and when he came to the catholic’s cells, he gave them food and then communion. When he reached my priest, the other priest gave him his food and then took some bread crumbs, as that was the only thing he had, pressed it into a small circle, consecrated it and gave it to my priest. Father told me with the utmost tenderness and emotion that he stood there, with the Body of Christ cupped reverantly in his palm and just stared at Him. He had never held Christ before, and he was not sure if he should eat Our Lord, or save Him.
My priest looked at me with tears in his eyes and said that that was one of the most special expirences of his life.

Now, in his case, he did not have a choice, he had to take the Host in his hand as the pressed bread would have fallen apart otherwise.

Personally, I do not know which is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and I do not feel it is my place to judge the actions of others. In this particular case, I truely believe that Jesus understood and so that if it is ‘wrong’ to recieve the Host in the hand, I think He forgave all of those prisoners who were able to recieve Him that day.
I praise God for looking after His Childern by coming to them even when they were imprisioned for their belief in Him.
Glory to You, O Christ!

 

[tee_eff_em]

Jade:

My priest is from Korea and some years back, he was imprisoned for quite some time. When his prision gaurds found out he was a priest,
…]
the other priest gave him his food and then took some bread crumbs, as that was the only thing he had, pressed it into a small circle, consecrated it and gave it to my priest. Father told me with the utmost tenderness and emotion that he stood there, with the Body of Christ cupped reverantly in his palm and just stared at Him. He had never held Christ before …]

That is quite a story, but you will forgive me if I am dubious of a priest who never held Christ before?

tee