Taking the Host by hand, disturbing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Tee,

I think he was talking about recieveing Him in the hand, as one who takes communion. Yes, while he would have held Him while he was celebrating Mass, outside of that rite, as a ‘lay person’ for lack of a better word (sorry if that is the wrong terminology) it was the first time in his life that that had happened.

Hope that helps! (wink)
 
You’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do in extraordinary circumstances (like having mass outside and helping a physically weak priest pass out communion at mass or a healthy priest administer it to the homebound and in group homes and sometimes when you feel overwhelmed by other factors to do other than the best thing to do). Law should not restrict these extraordinary exceptions to it, but these exceptions should not be scrupulously entered into the making of law or nothing will get decided.
 
It’s not what’s on a mans hands that make him unclean, for the pharisees themselves tried to test Jesus by not offering him water to wash before eating. His reply to their complaint " It’s what’s comes from the heart the makes a man clean or unclean" “For I tell you”, “The pagans, Prostitutes will sit at the Banquet set by my Father in Heaven”
If a unwashed beggar comes in off the street to receive Christ has he no less claim to mercy than us?
Of course we must offer all reverence in all circumstances nobody wants to see abuses of any kind but the more that has been granted to us the more is expexcted of us.
For those that refuse to drink from the chalice preferring to dip the Host they must remember that the Risen Christ cannot be separated Body from Blood for he gave Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty so if they feel uncomfortable about drinking from the chalice they need only receive the Sacred Host to Completely receive Christ. This is the teaching of the Church.

John in God
 
In our Church it’s about half and half. Half of the people take it in their hand then place it in their mouth and the other half let the priest place it on their tongue. I was raised to always let the priest place it in my mouth, but I don’t find it disturbing that others choose not to do it this way. Having the host come into my mouth directly from the hand of the priest seems more meaningful for me.
 
This is an extract from “The Constitutions of the Sacrsd Liturgy”:One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium."

I have never seen this done. Could anyone advise when this was forbidden by Rome?
 
40.png
maklavan:
This is an extract from “The Constitutions of the Sacrsd Liturgy”:One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium."

I have never seen this done. Could anyone advise when this was forbidden by Rome?
Click to expand...
If you mean “The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” Sacrosanctum Concilium, you will have to be more explicit whence your extraction, for I do not find it. (You can follow that link to the text at the Vatican website) If you mean some other document, please be more specific.

The current prohibition against self-communication may be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, #160.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.
Click to expand...
tee
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Just FYI, the quote is from here. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Ha! So it does. In that case, to answer maklavan’s question, “when this was forbidden by Rome?”, while I don’t pretend it is the first such prohibition, but only the current one, I found a copy of the same text in its original French:
*4. Quant à la manière de faire, on pourra suivre les indications de la tradition ancienne, qui mettait en relief la fonction ministérielle du prêtre et du diacre, en faisant déposer l’Hostie par ceux-ci dans la main du communiant. On pourra cependant adopter aussi une manière plus simple, en laissant le fidèle prendre directement l’Hostie dans le vase sacré [NOTA]. En tout cas, le fidèle devra consommer l’Hostie avant de retourner à sa place, et l’assistance du ministre sera soulignée par la formule habituelle : « Le Corps du Christ », à laquelle le fidèle répondra : « Amen ».
Click to expand...
NOTA. On remarquera utilement que :
Click to expand...
a) cette phrase : « On pourra cependant adopter aussi une manière plus simple, en laissant le fidèle prendre directement l’Hostie dans le vase sacré » est omise au n. 21 de De sacra Communione et de cultu mysteria eucharistici extra Missam* (21 juin 1973);
Click to expand...
b) cette pratique est formellement interdite dans l’édition 2002 de Missale Romanum, au n. 160 de la Présentation générale;
Click to expand...
c) cette interdiction est rappelée le 25 mars 2004 au n. 94 de Redemptionis Sacramentum [Nouvelle fenêtre].
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I have fluency only in English and Latin. But Babelfish knows French, and says (translating only the notes):
FOOT-NOTE. It will be noticed usefully that:
Click to expand...
a) this sentence: “One will be able however to also adopt a simpler manner, by letting the faithful one directly take the Host in the sacred vessel” is omitted with N. 21 of crowned Communione and of cultu mysteria eucharistici extra Missam (June 21, 1973);
Click to expand...
b) this practice is formally prohibited in edition 2002 of Missale Romanum, to N. 160 of the general Presentation;
Click to expand...
c) this prohibition is recalled on March 25, 2004 to N. 94 of Redemptionis Sacramentum News fenestrates ].
Click to expand...
I hope that sufficiently answers the question.

tee
 
We all could find documents to back up each side of this argument-the problem itself lies with the Bishops, and the Pope to some extent to allow these abuses to happen while under his watch. I Love our Holy father, but if you look at what has taken place in the past 25 years, with the state of the church-he spends all his time going from country to country -doing what I am not sure-and preaching over and over about Ecumenism. Where has he been on the sexual abuse scandal? He leaves it up to the US Bishops to sort out? Most of them are liberal or gay themselves by many accounts. And the liturgical abuses-he himself says that it should be on the toungue-so as Pope-if you are calling this the year of the Eucharist- put a stop to the placing it in the hand and do something-Would Pope Pius X do nothing?

This is the problem-you have a Pope who says something-but does nothing. I am sure that within the next 20 years, as is already being proposes by many progressives in the church-the mass will be said entirely by laypeople, the priest will sit in the first row-and the only time he will get up is to perform the consecration.

If the Bishops were leaders or really cared-they would put an end to this abuse-but it does not really bother them. For that matter they could not even decide to deny communion to a professed supporter of legalized murder in John Kerry-who we allow to call himself a Catholic-and he was permitted to receive communion the week after being in some Baptist church and a Protestant one before that…and people wonder why it gets harder for a conservative Catholic, one who wants to remain part of the church, defend her against supporters of SSPX and other traditional groups. How can this possibly be defended?
 
I think this is much ado about nothing. With regard to proper instruction on how to receive in the hand, I remember it being carefully explained to me when they changed, I think both at mass and in CCD class.
work(name removed by moderator)rogress:
  • His Holiness Pope John Paul II, responding to a reporter from *Stimme des glaubens *magazine, during his visit to Fulda (Germany) in November 1980.
Click to expand...
Unless I’m mistaken, doesn’t Stimme des Glaubens roughly translate to Voice of the Faithful? Interesting coincidence.
 
Dr. Colossus:
This indult (special persmission) was granted to the diocese of the United States at Vatican II. This is not the norm in the rest of the world, and the faithful in the US are still most definitely permitted to receive on the tongue. In fact, some parishes distribute the Eucharist by intinction (dipping the host in the wine) so as to require reception on the tongue.

As to why it is revolting to you, I cannot say. When Christ established the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the Apostles would have almost certainly received in the hand. Early Christian communities received Communion in the hand as well.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. I always wondered why some people opened their mouths to receive the Eucharist.

I converted Catholic about 6 years ago and was always told to hold out the hand to receive it. I like the way you explained it and the fact that you used the Bible as your source.
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
If you mean “The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” Sacrosanctum Concilium, you will have to be more explicit whence your extraction, for I do not find it. (You can follow that link to the text at the Vatican website) If you mean some other document, please be more specific.

The current prohibition against self-communication may be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, #160.

tee
Click to expand...
“The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” Sacrosanctum Concilium was the document in question chapter 12, clause 4. many thanks to those who replied.
 
A priest could consecrate a loaf of bread and break it and give the cup to the faithful to circulate, but Hosts should be taken on the tongue.

I am not saying receiving in hand it is sinful. Receiving the Lord cannot be sinful of its own. But this is real presence. There in nothing unholy about the hands of a believer in the state of grace. But people must remember that it is the same Host as before and that it is no less holy than when it was received on the tongue by kneeling recipients.
 
40.png
Exporter:
For all my early life the Host was placed on the tongue by the Priest.

For a few years now I have seen people extend their hands and they take the Host in their hands. Then they put it in the mouth.

Why is this revolting to me? Who started this? How did this practice get spread? I do not remember the Priest one day telling us it was an option. Is it done in Rome? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Exporter,

I think your wording is wrong. People don’t “take” the Host into their hands. They “receive” it. Then they put it in their mouths.

I don’t understand why it is revolting to you that people know how to eat real food. To me, it is totally unnatural to stick one’s tongue out and have real food placed on it. I don’t see anything irreverent or revolting about someone placing the Host in their mouth using their hands. That is one purpose of the hand. How else should people eat real food?

In Christ,
Scarlet
 
Here is the way that I look at it and maybe others dont see it this way, but I am just stating my opinion. If I am in a state of grace, which I should be when recieving communion, then I see nothing wrong with taking it in my hand then putting it to my mouth. Because one can say that the one who may be giving it to you is not in the state of grace. But no matter what if you believe it is truely the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ then that is what really is of importance.

I see nothing wrong with recieving by mouth or by hand.
40.png
Exporter:
For all my early life the Host was placed on the tongue by the Priest.

For a few years now I have seen people extend their hands and they take the Host in their hands. Then they put it in the mouth.

Why is this revolting to me? Who started this? How did this practice get spread? I do not remember the Priest one day telling us it was an option. Is it done in Rome? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
work(name removed by moderator)rogress:
Why was kneeling turned into standing up to receive communion in the hand? Why did we go from a deep act of humility to something less humble and respectful? Was it because people abused it? Well, people abuse civil rights. Should that be repealed as a result? Most would say “No”. Or maybe, is it because people want to get on with their trivial pursuits like working unbnecessarily on Sunday, catching the big game or getting ready for the barbeque event at your house? Let’s go back to on the knees on the toungue please.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree! I miss the days of kneeling. As far as communion in the hand, I don’t feel it is my place to touch Jesus. He has given Himself to me to eat, as the bread of life. Food for my soul. Not something to hold in my hand. I will continue to receive on the tongue and teach my grandchildren the same.
maggiec
 
40.png
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. :confused:
Click to expand...
The Apsotles were priests (bishops). Priest concelebrants take their own hosts when concelebrating. The people in the pews are not priests.
 
The standing and receiving in the hand are related, particularly with PT EM’s distributing it would be very hard for a layperson who does it only a few minutes a week to give communion on the tongue to persons of all different heights while standing. “In the hand” makes the communion rite go smoother , considering all the factors.

Except for older persons, particularly those with Parkinson’s or other spasticities, almost everyone receives in the hand.

The practicalities of the current rite, personnel and furniture set up (no communion rails) almost dictate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top