The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ksb1020 said:
This is good. Objective and fair experiments like this is probably way more convincing for more people who receive in the hand, than us people who COTT trying to convince them it’s more reverent, more traditional, more etc. to receive COTT. Our reasonings and opinions will always carry little weight when the shepherds of their flock tell them it’s a-ok. You can’t argue with facts, unless, like the person above, you just decide to dismiss it without even looking at it. Again my assertion yesterday that the majority of people who CITH just simply don’t care/ won’t hear anything
Click to expand...
Many people, poorly catechized younger people et al, aren’t even aware that visible fragments, crumbs, whatever you want to call Them, are indeed the Body of Christ, Lord, Savior, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Incarnate, Creator of the Universe. They do not think in terms of these particles clinging to their hands unseen, sloughing off on their clothes, the steering wheel, going places where They shouldn’t go when tending to various personal hygiene practices, and so on. Many simply think that it’s a nice ceremony that is supposed to make you feel good and make you love other people more. The Unitarian “mingling of the waters” could do that much.
 
There’s so many problems with receiving the Eucharist right now. Lack of belief in transubstantiation, people receiving in a state of mortal sin, etc. Maybe if we focused on catechising well, people will be more inclined to receive the better way. What I was taught that stuck with me is that if you’d bow/curtsy for a foreign head of state, why would you simply stand and take in your dirty paw the King of Kings? That didn’t come from a Church catechism class, I couldn’t attend those because of my father, that was my grandmother. I just don’t think that the majority of us can rely on the church to properly catechise our children anymore. Luckily I have a ICKSP parish nearby, either way, I still plan on sitting down with my children and the St. Pius X catechism.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Many people, poorly catechized younger people et al , aren’t even aware that visible fragments, crumbs, whatever you want to call Them, are indeed the Body of Christ, Lord, Savior, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Incarnate, Creator of the Universe.
Click to expand...
Similarly, many people who are well-catechized in other matters, aren’t aware that fragments of the Eucharist that are indistinguishable from dust are no longer the Body of Christ, and fragments of the Eucharist that are ambiguous (i.e. difficult to discern whether or not the accidents of bread remain) are doubtful the Body of Christ (and so should be properly cared for).

The linked experiment proves nothing. In the images of the “actual size” of the particles, most, when compared to normal dust particles, would be indistinguishable from dust, and the rest would be ambiguous at best. If this is the case, then those particles are either a. no longer the Body of Christ, or b. not certainly the Body of Christ. In the case of a., no sacrilege was committed. In the case of b., appropriate care should be taken, but sacrilege is doubtful.

On the rare occasions that I receive Communion in the hand, I always check my hands for ambiguous particles, then consume them as would be appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Phillip_Rolfes said:
What’s being presented here is simply that CitH is now permitted, there is historical precedence for it, it is not in any way inferior to CotT, nor does it open the Eucharist up to abuses or sacrileges any more than CotT does (as many who have posted here have demonstrated).
Click to expand...
True story: About 3 years ago, the pastor of a RC church near me wrote in their bulletin about Hosts being found in the pews 😱, the missalettes :tired_face:and on the floor!!! 😠. He wrote about how they needed to immediately consume the Host if they received CITH.

If that’s not sacrilegious, then Idk what is.

Since then, I’ve been afraid to go there for confession. (They have the bulletin on the table just outside the Adoration chapel, which is now closed due to the crisis.)
 
Margaret_Ann said:
He wrote about how they needed to immediately consume the Host if they received CITH.
Click to expand...
That is what is supposed to happen. A priest or EMHC should not let the communicant step away unless the Host is consumed on the spot in their sight.
I have seen from time to time them stopping people and telling them to consume.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
True story: About 3 years ago, the pastor of a RC church near me wrote in their bulletin about Hosts being found in the pews 😱, the missalettes :tired_face:and on the floor!!! 😠. He wrote about how they needed to immediately consume the Host if they received CITH.

If that’s not sacrilegious, then Idk what is.
Click to expand...
No one denies that this happens. But others on here have also pointed out witnessing the Eucharist falling to the floor when the Communicant was kneeling and receiving on the tongue. I’ve had this happen to me personally… at least twice. And the priest didn’t bother bending over to pick it up. That was left up to me.

What it sounds like wasn’t mentioned in the bulletin was the number of Hosts found. Are we talking several every Sunday? Or are we talking one or two every now and then? And was it faithful Catholics who were leaving them around, or was it perhaps visiting non-Catholics who knew no better and weren’t told by the priest that they ought not to approach unless they are Catholics in good standing? If the latter is the case, then CitH can’t be blamed for the incidents.
 
ksb1020 said:
That didn’t come from a Church catechism class, I couldn’t attend those because of my father, that was my grandmother. I just don’t think that the majority of us can rely on the church to properly catechise our children anymore. Luckily I have a ICKSP parish nearby, either way, I still plan on sitting down with my children and the St. Pius X catechism.
Click to expand...
You are my rock star! You are doing exactly what you should be doing.

More out of necessity than anything else, I sent my son to a diocesan Catholic school for six years. I just trusted them at least to impart the basics, never mind the fact that he never even had a Catholic homeroom teacher until Grade 5. When we started digging into the Baltimore Catechism in homeschool, I found that he had massive gaps in his knowledge. We fixed that pronto.
 
Although it’ll be a couple years, I’ll probably be coming to you for advice on homeschooling curriculum and other stuff!
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Many people, poorly catechized younger people et al , aren’t even aware that visible fragments, crumbs, whatever you want to call Them, are indeed the Body of Christ, Lord, Savior, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Incarnate, Creator of the Universe.
Click to expand...
Yes! And not only just young Catholics as the following poll seems to be saying. But the vast majority of all Catholics believe that the bread and wine used at Mass in Holy Communion are merely symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is nothing short of a crisis in the Church! And this simply cannot be ignored any longer. This needs to be addressed…like yesterday!!!

 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
What it sounds like wasn’t mentioned in the bulletin was the number of Hosts found. Are we talking several every Sunday? Or are we talking one or two every now and then?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter it shouldn’t happen once, ever, anywhere…

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

Even if in the rare instance that the host falls to the floor when receiving on the tongue only, you will never here of the host being used as a bookmark in a missal at a TLM church, I would love to hear anyone’s story of the host being used as a bookmark in a church that only allows for communion on the tongue, but you won’t because receiving on the tongue only doesn’t allow for the opportunity.
Phillip_Rolfes said:
And was it faithful Catholics who were leaving them around, or was it perhaps visiting non-Catholics who knew no better and weren’t told by the priest that they ought not to approach unless they are Catholics in good standing? If the latter is the case, then CitH can’t be blamed for the incidents.
Click to expand...
CitH can and should be blamed for these (and more) instances, because if COTT was the only option across the board, these “incidents” wouldn’t have happened at all.

Take a look at TLM churches this isn’t an issue, likewise this isn’t an issue at Eastern Catholic churches, EO, OO and the ACotE because they only allow for COTT, it’s a simple fix and I can’t understand why it’s a problem for anyone to make the switch if they truly believe in the real presence.
 
Last edited:
I receive on the hand. The Church allows it and it is more sanitary. I believe in the real presence.

Now, we are always able to be more “strict” than the Church in our personal devotions and actions. If one feels that COTT is more reverent, or it’s the only way to receive, good for you. Go right ahead.

However, we should refrain from the view that “in this, the Church is wrong and I am right”. To further couch one’s position as, “If you really cared” or “If you were really Catholic you would agree with me” is…I don’t know what. It’s not good.
 
More sanitary… by that logic Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people must be sick all the time? Yet they still live.
 
Why do liberal Catholics come to this traditional part of the forum
to rant and rave? Obsessed much?
 
Last edited:
Atrocitous said:
As a pastor, I clearly cannot prohibit it
Click to expand...
But you can. Conference of Bishops can prohibit it, then also local Bishop can prohibit it, then also Priest can prohibit it.
Tis_Bearself said:
Yes, I have never thought that the apostles, or the disciples on the road to Emmaus, knelt and let Jesus put a little piece of consecrated bread on their tongues, despite some artistic depictions of this.
Click to expand...
While I agree, there are two problems with this- first is that they were Apostles and they were ordained by that time. Second is that antiquarianism is heresy. We mustn’t disregard every liturgical and theological development of the past. Church has in her wisdom judged that normative form of receiving Eucharist is on the tongue. 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.
otjm said:
According to the Church, there are two correct ways to receive.One is on the tongue, and one is in the hand.
Click to expand...
No, not entirely. You would not be allowed to receive in the hand in Slovakia for example (before Corona and all). It is an exception to the rule and not every Country, Bishop or Pastor actually allow this. 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.
Montrose said:
The Church has said receiving in the hand is valid.
Click to expand...
Actually the only time Church did speak about validity and so on was when Paul VI released Memoriale Domini and it isn’t even that strong as “valid”. He just allowed it as an exception.
enoch1 said:
cith was permitted by V2…read the documents
Click to expand...
It wasn’t. There is no document stating that.
ksb1020 said:
Why do liberal Catholics come to this traditional part of the forum
to rant and rave? Obsessed much?
Click to expand...
It’s their prerogative to post here and I think their (name removed by moderator)ut is very valuable in general. It would be wrong not to listen to the other side. Are you scared they are right?

Point is, CITH is an exception. It should be treated like an exception. COTT is norm. It should be treated like norm. 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. That does not make it invalid, but it shows that saying “it’s earlier tradition” isn’t quite sound. Anyhow, Church has power and authority to allow it but as of now it is an exception. In Slovakia one could not receive that way and would not be let to Eucharist before COVID crisis. And our Bishops are simply following what Vatican said.
 
ksb1020 said:
Why do liberal Catholics come to this traditional part of the forum
to rant and rave? Obsessed much?
Click to expand...
I’ll show myself out. Enjoy congratulating yourself on being superior to those you perceive as “liberal.”
 
What is also worth to note is that Memoriale Domini does allow Bishops to ask for indult only if that abuse is already present in their territories. This means that where it wasn’t already present by 1969 it should NOT have been allowed and shouldn’t have been encouraged from that time up until now. Now I know current practice is different but that does not mean it is justified by Vatican documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top