The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

[PaulinVA]

Why do liberal Catholics come to this traditional part of the forum
to rant and rave?

Since when is, “I’ll go with what the Church says” liberal?

 

[Lucy_1]

I cannot understand why every (OF) Mass feels the need for 4+ EMHC’s, I have been to large churches where there is no EMHC’s and it honestly doesn’t seem like it takes more than 5 minutes longer to receive.
I have waited extra time (at OF churches) at the back of line just to receive from a priest, what harm is there in waiting a few extra minutes?

I absolutely agree, and I’m in charge of the EMHC ministry at my church! One positive thing about Covid, no more EMHCs. Of course, ppl can’t receive cott now, and the way things are going, not for a long, long, time. I had never received cith before, and I am not comfortable doing it, but for the foreseeable future, cith is it.

 

[ksb1020]

The reply waasn’t to your post I don’t think, but the gentleman who has been on this thread for two days basically insulting traditional minded Catholics. That is what I’d call obssesed, also thanks for ignoring my counterpoint on COTT being somehow less sanitary

 

[farronwolf]

So we have an entire day spent by countless posters and what I get from it is,

Na na na na boo boo, I’m a better Catholic than you are because I am doing this this way.

What complete and utter nonsense. Both sides can find reason for doing it the way they prefer to do it, and guess what, the Church approves of both forms.

To purposely create division among Catholics by taking a position which is contrary to Church teaching is not very Christ like, nor helpful to yourself, or your fellow Catholics, or the Church.

What nonsense. How about doing something constructive.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

the Church approves of both forms.

But she doesn’t. Not equally. One is norm other is exception allowed only in some parts of the world.

 

[farronwolf]

But she doesn’t. Not equally. One is norm other is exception allowed only in some parts of the world.

I live in the US. Is it allowed here?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I live in the US. Is it allowed here?

I think so. But US isn’t entire world. As I said, in Central Europe you wouldn’t be allowed to receive that way.

 

[PaulinVA]

also thanks for ignoring my counterpoint on COTT being somehow less sanitary

I ignored it because it wasn’t worth responding to. But, since you asked -

Yes, it is more sanitary to place the Host on a hand than onto a tongue, especially when the communicant is standing. Maybe that’s why, during this pandemic, it’s being prohibited in many places.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

but the gentleman who has been on this thread for two days basically insulting traditional minded Catholics

I assume this was a parting shot at me on my way out the door. If so, it’s delusional. Never once have I insulted people who prefer COTT, and I wouldn’t. It’s perfectly fine with me if people prefer to receive that way. If someone says “i prefer communion on the tongue, but to each their own” then I have no beef whatsoever.

What I object to is the smug tone and the implication that people who take CITH are somehow inferior Catholics. That’s a bad look, friend.

Have a great day.

 

[farronwolf]

Yes, it is more sanitary to place the Host on a hand than onto a tongue, especially when the communicant is standing. Maybe that’s why, during this pandemic, it’s being prohibited in many places.

Except in our parish. The Bishop has strongly encouraged communion in the hand and directed that the hands be washed before and during communion if any contact is made by the priest or deacon.

But no, our priest encourages communion on the tongue and only uses hand sanitizer if he comes in contact with recipient during distribution.

Even priests won’t follow directives from their Bishops. How sad is that.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Even priests won’t follow directives from their Bishops. How sad is that.

Priests have right from Canon Law to deny you Communion in the Hand if they wish so. Bishops can’t overrule them on that.

Also I am by no means saying those who receive CITH are less Catholic or that it should be banned. I have my own opinions but they don’t affect anyone else and I understand that where it is allowed, it is perfectly valid practice. Problem is that it is an exception so please treat it like it is an exception.

 

[Montrose]

Priests have right from Canon Law to deny you Communion in the Hand if they wish so.

Actually that is wrong. Check the GIRM. It specifically states that receiving on the tongue or in the hand is at the discretion of the communicant. The priest or EMHC cannot refuse.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

and I wonder how can we make sure it doesn’t??? Communion on the tongue.

I’ve heard plenty of stories of Hosts being stolen back in the day when Communion on the tongue was the only option.

 

[CathBoy1]

Exceptions are allowed and that’s fine, but when “on the tongue” becomes problematic or unheard of, and exceptions are presented as norm while they are not… we have a problem.

Exactly, and sadly the exception is becoming the norm in many parts of the world.

It is an exception valid in some parts of the world but it would be wrong to assume it is equal to normative way of receiving.

It isn’t equal whatsoever, CitH was an abuse that was then permitted/tolerated, in those areas where it was in practice at the time (and it certainly wasn’t in practice in the USA at that time), by Memoriale Domini simply to avoid scandal, to recap:

Paul VI permitted/tolerated the abuse of communion in the hand, only in certain places of the world, to avoid scandal.
It was not meant to replace communion on the tongue nor was it meant to be equal to communion on the tongue. This is why communion on the tongue is called the norm and communion in the hand is an indult (exception).
This is a plain and simple fact, all one has to do is read the history and documents on communion in the hand within the Catholic Church.

It is also worth to note that until non-organic development warranted by some Liturgical abuses in post-Vatican II era, no Apostolic Church with valid Sacraments allowed CITH to my knowledge .

Quite telling, no?

One positive thing about Covid, no more EMHCs. Of course, ppl can’t receive cott now, and the way things are going, not for a long, long, time.

I have been attending a Byzantine Catholic Church and even now we are allowed to receive communion on the tongue, although individual wooden spoons are used which are then later burned for proper disposal.

I have heard of TLM churches that allow communion on the tongue and in certain parts of the United States communion on the tongue is allowed in OF Masses, of course it is up to each bishop on what to allow for their territory.

Continued…

 

[CathBoy1]

…Continued from above

I live in the US. Is it allowed here?

Illicitly yes, it shouldn’t be allowed in the US under the guidelines that were drawn up for allowing communion in the hand (Memoriale Domini) it should only be permitted in those areas where it was already practiced at that time 1969, and in 1969 communion in the hand was not practiced in the USA.

Also I am by no means saying those who receive CITH are less Catholic or that it should be banned. I have my own opinions but they don’t affect anyone else and I understand that where it is allowed, it is perfectly valid practice. Problem is that it is an exception so please treat it like it is an exception.

I agree 100%

The priest or EMHC cannot refuse.

Thus it is wrong for any bishop to try to suppress COTT even during a pandemic, bishops don’t even have that authority They can only make strong recommendations as COTT is the norm and bishops do not have the authority to change the norm for any reason whatsoever.

I’ve heard plenty of stories of Hosts being stolen back in the day when Communion on the tongue was the only option.

Yes, as the saying goes a lock will only keep an honest man honest.

But when you leave the house and the door is left wide open?

As I stated before, this issue is almost nonexistent (barring the super rare instance of thieves) in the churches where COTT is the only option available.

 

[farronwolf]

Illicitly yes, it shouldn’t be allowed in the US under the guidelines that were drawn up for allowing communion in the hand (Memoriale Domini) it should only be permitted in those areas where it was already practiced at that time 1969, and in 1969 communion in the hand was not practiced in the USA.

So all our Bishops, Cardinals and even the Pope are complicit in allowing illicit activities within the Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“When permitted, the choice as to the form of reception falls upon the communicant and not upon the priest. However, since it is a permission, it does not generate an absolute right, and the pastors can rescind the permission, either generally or in particular circumstances if objective motives exist for doing so.”

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So all our Bishops, Cardinals and even the Pope are complicit in allowing illicit activities within the Church.

Technically not the Pope. What does Pope have to do with it? Pope is above law.

However others are not. Law clearly binds them and such is law.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Why assume that those of us who aren’t diehard advocates for CotT only are theological liberals? The primary reason I’m not a diehard advocate is because it’s historically untenable. And I won’t sit here and claim that I receive the Eucharist more reverently than the likes of St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, or even St. Augustine simply because I receive on the tongue.

The fact of the matter is it’s the disposition of the heart that matters most when we approach. If my heart isn’t in the right place, then I eat and drink condemnation on myself. God willing my heart is in the right place so that my communing will be “for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life.”

 

[CathBoy1]

So all our Bishops, Cardinals and even the Pope are complicit in allowing illicit activities within the Church.

You’re extending the reach to far, not all bishops only some bishops, not all Cardinals only some Cardinals and the Pope allowed for this to be put into practice only in certain parts of the world…

…but before he allowed it to be put in practice in those certain parts of the world he was indeed tolerating illicit activities, and the very fact that it was allowed even in those certain parts of the world points to that.