Tongue or Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimOliv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The way that the Hosts are made today pretty much excludes the issue of crumbs, unless you are rec. part of the large Host that is used by the priest in some places, the very large ones that can be fractioned and given to several other people. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen crumbs. And then I simply consumed the crumb.

I realize that I don’t have to participate in any thread I don’t wish to participate in, but there have been scores of these threads over the last several years. Maybe we could start searching the archives before we start another one, because they simply become circular arguments. Both modes of reception are permitted by the Church, as is intinction and the reception of the Chalice by the laity. I don’t think it does for us as Catholics to divide up into “camps” and then brow beat each other.
 
I know that the early church recieve the Sacred Host in the hand. But today it is necessary that tongue be used to prevent sacrilege (taking of Sacred Host to homes). We can never know who are Catholics and who are not. So i think it is much better for the communion be recieved on the tongue.
 
palmas85 said:
Of course all those who use this particular reference as justification for receiving in the hand overlook one important thing. During St. Cyrils lifetime, the Church was in no way as organized as it is now, and many regional variations in the Mass were not only common but almost the norm. Remember, the Canon Scripture had not yet been determined during his lifetime, and different churches used different texts for scripture and different formulas in the Mass.

What Cyril was describing in his treatsie on receiving Holy Communion was the practice in the Jerusalem Church, of which he was the Bishop and which was not the center of Christianity at that time. In fact it was pretty far down on the list behind, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome.

So while receiving in the hand may very well have ben the practice in Jerusalem and in other Churches as well, his letter in no way indicates that it was the practice of the whole Church of even of the majority of the individual churches.
Click to expand...
St. Cyril is not the only one who writes Communion in the hand. Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch also have references. I think even Rome has one.

**
 
I think posting arguements for and against receiving in the hand is going to simply result in a thread of various quotations. How about everyone as an individual. I’m seeing humility as being a common reply. But anyone else? Does anyone receive in the hand for reasons other than humility?
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax vobiscum!

What about any crumbs that might get on our hands when we recieve? The priest uses the same two fingers (or three in the old rite, I believe) to administer Communion. He then makes sure that any crumbs left on his fingers from touching the host go into the chalice before he cleans it, so that none of the Body of Christ falls to the ground or anywhere else. For those of you who recieve on the hand, what do you do to ensure that no part of the host falls? Remember, Christ is fully present in ALL of the host, so even if it is just a tiny little piece too small to really see, it is still Christ that is falling to the ground.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Exactly! I used to receive the host in the hand since we were told at our parish that was the way to do it now. Then I heard Father Angelus say at a mass on EWTN that if we receive the host in the hand we are responsible for every crumb, so that did it for me, I now receive it on the tongue again!

Vickie
 
Booklover said:
Exactly! I used to receive the host in the hand since we were told at our parish that was the way to do it now. Then I heard Father Angelus say at a mass on EWTN that if we receive the host in the hand we are responsible for every crumb, so that did it for me, I now receive it on the tongue again!

Vickie
Click to expand...
When you consider that the priest takes so much special care and so many precautions to ensure there are no stray crumbs just lying around, then he hands the host to someone and they walk away and dust their hands of Christ’s body. That, I must say does both me a bit.
 
viktor_aleksndr said:
But today it is necessary that tongue be used to prevent sacrilege (taking of Sacred Host to homes).
Click to expand...
Apparently there is something called the 3-step rule where the Communicant receiving on the hand must consume it in 3 steps or be stopped by the Priest, EMHC or Warden. Dont know if its just for my Diocese.

[And yes recieption on the tongue does simplify all this]
 
viktor_aleksndr said:
I know that the early church recieve the Sacred Host in the hand. But today it is necessary that tongue be used to prevent sacrilege (taking of Sacred Host to homes). We can never know who are Catholics and who are not. So i think it is much better for the communion be recieved on the tongue.
Click to expand...
But see, this is precisely the thing I’m talking about. It ISN’T “necessary.” The Church permits reception in the hand, which precludes reception on the tongue as being “necessary.” And it is also very simplistic to imply that reception on the tongue will prevent sacriledge. It won’t necessarily. The host could easily be removed from someone’s mouth and secreted away for any misguided reason (esp. the Host in use today, which seem to much harder and drier). Stories of the profanation of the Host existed before the Church again allowed reception in the hand.
What would prevent those who are so misguided as to take the Host home for veneration is good catechesis and good catechesis isn’t going to have much impact on those benighted souls who are taking it away for a darker purpose.
 
thechrismyster said:
how did the apostles receive at the last supper?
Click to expand...
And I thought to myself,“I wonder when someone will bring this up?”

It’s possible that they rec. it in their hands, it’s equally possible that Christ placed it in their mouths (a middle eastern practice of great love and hospitality is to feed your guest with your own hand). It doesn’t matter, since to appeal to that is to fall victim to antiquarianism, an error that says the old way is the only way (the Ven.Pius XII condemned it). We can look for historical precedence, but the Church is always free to order the disciplines surrounding the Sacraments. The point is that now she permits people the liberty (generally) to receive either way. If one wishes to receive on the tongue, one has that liberty. If one wishes to receive in the hand, one also has that liberty throughout most of the Latin Rite. We should just leave each other alone on this.
 
When I was an Episcopalian, I received in the hand while kneeling (giving the feeling that we were begging with hands upraised!). Many folks received on the tongue by intinction as well. I was received into a traditional Catholic church where reception was on the tongue only. Now I attend a parish closer to my home and I receive both ways. I don’t know if I have rhyme or reason for it, but I generally receive in the hand if there’s an EMHC, but on the tongue if I receive from the Priest.

Of course, both ways are valid, but it seems reception on the tongue is less prone to possible abuse. 😛
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The way that the Hosts are made today pretty much excludes the issue of crumbs, unless you are rec. part of the large Host that is used by the priest in some places, the very large ones that can be fractioned and given to several other people. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen crumbs. And then I simply consumed the crumb.

I realize that I don’t have to participate in any thread I don’t wish to participate in, but there have been scores of these threads over the last several years. Maybe we could start searching the archives before we start another one, because they simply become circular arguments. Both modes of reception are permitted by the Church, as is intinction and the reception of the Chalice by the laity. I don’t think it does for us as Catholics to divide up into “camps” and then brow beat each other.
Click to expand...
:clapping: Thanks for having the “guts” to say this. I got massively beat up on another thread when I agreed that brow beating each other is one of the main problems I see in the church today (and this forum sometimes). I shall follow what my local Bishop says.
 
maryj said:
:clapping: Thanks for having the “guts” to say this. I got massively beat up on another thread when I agreed that brow beating each other is one of the main problems I see in the church today (and this forum sometimes). I shall follow what my local Bishop says.
Click to expand...
Well, the Bishop of my mother’s Diocese recently prohibited the use of the patton in any diocesan church.

When she contacted the Episcopal Vicar after her priest declared “Adoption is a sin equal to Abortion” the Bishop replied in a letter that she, as a lay person, should leave interpretation of church law to the Bishop and instructed her to direct any future inquiries through her pastor.

Their Parochial Vicar also got on television and said that unless the church ordains women the priesthood and the church as a whole will die out…the Bishop made him a pastor shortly afterward.

Listening to your Bishop is great. But if we all reach a point where we say “I’m going to not even think about these things, I’ll just do what my Bishop says” then you leave yourself open to Liturgical Abuse. In the scenario I just presented to you, my mother finds herself as an island in a sea of people doing, pretty much whatever they like under the protection of “My Bishop said its okay”

I like to consider these arguements an exercise in self-motivated research. We get onto a topic like this and we scramble for our GIRM’s, our Catechism of the Catholic Church and our Canon Law to cite. Brow-beating aside, there will always be issued which stirr controversy. The decision we have to make is, is our faith solely in our Pastor or local Bishop or do we place our faith in Holy Mother Church?

For people like my mother, she chose the latter and found herself a Traditional Latin church. I suppose you could look at these discussions as kicking up a fuss over nothing, but then again, its just a discussion board where we all get the chance to express our opinions. If you don’t like the climate of the board, no one forces you to post. I think this is a much better outlet for expression as opposed to my previous church where ushers would enforce a dress code they decided on (the pastor didn’t really care one way or the other), or where the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion simply refused to offer communion on the tongue because they, personally viewed the practice as “Archaic”

I think THOSE are the dangerous forms of expression. Discussion boards are just a fun place to post when you have your lunch hour or when you have a minute or two of free time.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax vobiscum!

What about any crumbs that might get on our hands when we recieve? The priest uses the same two fingers (or three in the old rite, I believe) to administer Communion. He then makes sure that any crumbs left on his fingers from touching the host go into the chalice before he cleans it, so that none of the Body of Christ falls to the ground or anywhere else. For those of you who recieve on the hand, what do you do to ensure that no part of the host falls? Remember, Christ is fully present in ALL of the host, so even if it is just a tiny little piece too small to really see, it is still Christ that is falling to the ground.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Read this letter sent to the Vatican from a former EMHC.

fatimacrusader.com/cr83/cr83pg8.asp

It has to do with just this subject. Very interesting.
 
maryj said:
:clapping: Thanks for having the “guts” to say this. I got massively beat up on another thread when I agreed that brow beating each other is one of the main problems I see in the church today (and this forum sometimes). I shall follow what my local Bishop says.
Click to expand...
I also applaud those who try to keep things civil. I’m a convert and I think my largest sin is still pride although I continue to work on it. I recognize it romping through these discussion threads when so many people believe that they have the holiest, most sacred way of thinking or doing or whatever and then they proceed to verbally beat down their brothers and sisters. It is not everyone, but it pops up enough that if I had seen these threads before converting it might have given me pause.

None of us is worthy to receive Our Lord at all. Period. Not in the hand and not on the tongue. I’m sure everyone here remembers saying those words during the liturgy. They make me tear up each time I say them because for most of my life I was not Catholic and did not have this incredible gift from my Creator!

I am grateful and humbled that He would allow me to receive Him in any manner, physical or spiritual, through the Word or His Precious Body and Blood. I’ll take Him in any manner the church (which has the teaching authority that none of us has been granted) will permit and do it as reverently as I can.
 
AquinaSavio said:
I don’t receive on the hand because I don’t feel that I’m worthy to be touching the Body of Christ. I just feel that the Priest or ordained minister are the only ones who should handle the Body of Christ, IMO. Just my :twocents:
Click to expand...
It is impossible to receive communion without touching the Body of Christ. i like to receive in the hand because I like the intimacy of clasping our Lord and Savior in my hands before I follow his instructions to eat his body.
 
It’s obvious that we have to touch Him. However, I don’t think that His precious body should be handled by lay persons. I don’t like touching sacramentals more than absolutely necessary. Since Christ’s Body is so much more sacred than any sacramental, I don’t want to have to touch Him with my hand.
 
AquinaSavio said:
It’s obvious that we have to touch Him. However, I don’t think that His precious body should be handled by lay persons. I don’t like touching sacramentals more than absolutely necessary. Since Christ’s Body is so much more sacred than any sacramental, I don’t want to have to touch Him with my hand.
Click to expand...
Folks I think we’re drifitng off topic a bit. We all know the church’s opinions on this. The topic at hand is if you receive on the tongue, why do you prefer to? And if you receive on the hand, why do you prefer to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top