Tongue or Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimOliv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirkLVNV said:
So we’re getting information from radical traditionalist sites and priests who aren’t even in good standing with the Church. Helpful.
Click to expand...
will you please explain how you know this to be true. Thanks in advance.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Me too. I also feel it shows more respect for his Body. The less He is handled, the better imo. 🙂
 
maryj said:
will you please explain how you know this to be true. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
It is a traditional site but that’s beside the point. The point being that even one crumb is the whole Christ. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

I now receive on the tongue. When I received in the hand, on occasion I would lick my palm after placing the Host in my mouth when I saw a crumb left behind. I was always afraid of losing a crumb.
 
moira said:
It is a traditional site but that’s beside the point. The point being that even one crumb is the whole Christ. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Click to expand...
It’s hardly beside the point. Catholics should NOT be getting their information from radical traditionalist sites which do nothing, but challenge the legitimate authority of the Church. They should be getting their information from the Church.

You say “traditional,” I say radical traditionalist.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
It’s hardly beside the point. Catholics should NOT be getting their information from radical traditionalist sites which do nothing, but challenge the legitimate authority of the Church. They should be getting their information from the Church.

You say “traditional,” I say radical traditionalist.
Click to expand...
What is the source?
 
I have always received on the tongue and always from the Priest or a Deacon. I received once from a Extraordinary Minister and it just didn’t feel right. I have only received twice from the Chalice once from a Deacon and once from an Extraordinary Minister. Again, it just didn’t feel right. Currently, if I cannot receive from a Priest or Deacon, I’ll just wait until the next time.

Also, some Priests literally hate to distribute on the tongue and will do everything from holding the Host so low that you almost have to do a formal bow to receive, to actually flicking the Host into your mouth. I know who they are and will avoid them as well.

I have received through intinction when I’ve attended the Maronite Liturgy and I heartily approve of that practice:thumbsup: 👍 👍 and wish that the Roman Church would go to it.

Receiving in the hand from an Extraordinary Minister doesn’t feel right I can’t really explain it. I guess it has to do with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I know that Priests are human and have problems just like everybody else. And while I know that, and accept it, I still believe that you stand a better chance of receiving from a person of good character a clean heart and in a state of grace if you receive from a Priest. I think there is less chance that he was engaged in some illicit activity before the Mass than some lay person. I’m not being judgemental, but I really don’t think that the average lay person is as likely to be in a state of grace as is a Priest. And that includes me. And I don’t think the Host should be handed around. It should go directly from the Priests hands to your mouth. Sorry, but that is just the way I see it.

I have also seen too many, way too many people receiving in the hand who act like they are eating a cookie or a sandwich. I’ve actually seen people take small bites as they walk away from the server. Unbelievable.

As far as dropping from the hand, I’ve seen that happen, more often than you would think. When I was serving I only saw it happen once and luckily I was there with my trusty paten to save the day:thumbsup: …
 
maryj said:
will you please explain how you know this to be true. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004VHX

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-06/questions.html

Note the 2004 letter of the Apostolic Nuncio, The Most Rev. Gabriel Montalvo, of happy memory, on this page:

fatimafamily.org/news/gruner.html

For this link, scroll down to The Gruner Chronicles:

catholic-legate.com/side_menu/ultratrad.html

I hope this link will take you right to the article, but if not, look the site over for the *Statement on Father Nicholas Gruner *by the Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, HE Jose T. Cardinal Sanchez:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5140

Also:

theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/ngruner/wanderer.html

Hope this helps.
 
What makes you think the character of the person distributing Communion has any bearing on the matter? If you understand the often-discussed concept that the Mass’s validity or worth has nothing to do with the character of the celebrant then surely that translates to the worth or validity of the Eucharist you receive.

A phrase I heard in my childhood when asking about such matters, which has stuck with me, is that a diamond is a diamond whether you receive it from a master jeweller or a thief.
 
palmas85 said:
I know that Priests are human and have problems just like everybody else. And while I know that, and accept it, I still believe that you stand a better chance of receiving from a person of good character a clean heart and in a state of grace if you receive from a Priest. I think there is less chance that he was engaged in some illicit activity before the Mass than some lay person. I’m not being judgemental, but I really don’t think that the average lay person is as likely to be in a state of grace as is a Priest. .
Click to expand...
But Palmas, don’t you see that as being a back handed or back door denial of the venerable teaching of the Church that the state of the soul of the minister (either ordinary or extraordinary) has absolutely no effect on the efficacy of the Sacrament? I ask this respectfully and I’m not being a wise-mouth. According to the Church, it doesn’t matter whether or not the priest is in a state of grace (and we’re all supposed to be when approaching the sacrament) as referent to the efficacy of the Sacrament. The priest receives the Sacrament, worthily or unworthily, and the EMHC does as well, also either worthily or not.

Frankly, the idea that consecrated hands ought to be the only ones that touch the Sacrament makes more “logical” sense.
 
palmas85 said:
I have always received on the tongue and always from the Priest or a Deacon. I received once from a Extraordinary Minister and it just didn’t feel right. I have only received twice from the Chalice once from a Deacon and once from an Extraordinary Minister. Again, it just didn’t feel right. Currently, if I cannot receive from a Priest or Deacon, I’ll just wait until the next time.

Also, some Priests literally hate to distribute on the tongue and will do everything from holding the Host so low that you almost have to do a formal bow to receive, to actually flicking the Host into your mouth. I know who they are and will avoid them as well.

I have received through intinction when I’ve attended the Maronite Liturgy and I heartily approve of that practice:thumbsup: 👍 👍 and wish that the Roman Church would go to it.

Receiving in the hand from an Extraordinary Minister doesn’t feel right I can’t really explain it. I guess it has to do with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I know that Priests are human and have problems just like everybody else. And while I know that, and accept it, I still believe that you stand a better chance of receiving from a person of good character a clean heart and in a state of grace if you receive from a Priest. I think there is less chance that he was engaged in some illicit activity before the Mass than some lay person. I’m not being judgemental, but I really don’t think that the average lay person is as likely to be in a state of grace as is a Priest. And that includes me. And I don’t think the Host should be handed around. It should go directly from the Priests hands to your mouth. Sorry, but that is just the way I see it.

I have also seen too many, way too many people receiving in the hand who act like they are eating a cookie or a sandwich. I’ve actually seen people take small bites as they walk away from the server. Unbelievable.

As far as dropping from the hand, I’ve seen that happen, more often than you would think. When I was serving I only saw it happen once and luckily I was there with my trusty paten to save the day:thumbsup: …
Click to expand...
What makes you think the character of the person distributing Communion has any bearing on the matter? If you understand the often-discussed concept that the Mass’s validity or worth has nothing to do with the character of the celebrant then surely that translates to the worth or validity of the Eucharist you receive.

A saying I heard in my childhood when asking about such matters, which has stuck with me, is that a diamond is a diamond whether you receive it from a master jeweller or a thief. Same with the Mass and the Eucharist.

Of course your points about greater chance of dropping or other misuse/abuse of the sacrament when received in the hand is worth considering, but then even if it were to be distributed on the tongue people may still equally receive it unworthily, they simply run less risk of physical profanation of the sacrament.
 
Kleary,

Communion in the hand did not start as an abuse by disobedient clergy. There is record of this practice being accepted in the very early centuries of the church as far back as when St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote his Guide to the Liturgy. In section V “The Sacred Liturgy and Communion” paragraph 21-22 states the following about how to receive communion (Italics mine):

"In approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread, but make thy left hand a throne for the right as for that which is to receive a king. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest is evidently a loss to thee as if it were from one of thine own members…

After thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ and while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hat accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries. "

This document, by no means lacking in reverence, and filled in other passages with warnings to maintain proper reverence for the Eucharist, was written even before the liturgy that many were used to before Vatican II ever became a standard. These priests whom you term “Liberal” are not encouraging anything that has not already had precedent in the practices and disciplines of the Church. Nobody has forbidden anyone to continue receiving on the tongue. The dogma of transubstantiation has remained a constant, throughout these liturgical changes, and we are called to place our trust in God, that he will guide the decisions made by those who are the successors of the Twelve Apostles. Christ himself promised us that even the very gates of Hell would not overthrow the church which he built on the Rock of Peter. We must trust in that promise, even when we find it difficult to do so.
kleary said:
“Truth needs no embellishment”

Communion in the hand started as an abuse by disobedient clergy and liberals who are bent on changing Church Teaching on the Eucharist.

When they came out with it they said it was an expression of the priesthood of the layity as opposed to the PREVIOUS teaching that taught (We all were before 1975) that only the consecrated hands of the priest may touch the Sacred Host.

Communion in the hand - Why?
  • Do you remember when Catholics always knelt for Holy Communion?
  • Do you remember when Catholics received Holy Communion on the tongue only?
  • Do you remember when only the priest administered Holy Communion?
  • Do you remember our priests and sisters teaching us it was sacrilegious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host?
  • Do you remember when tabernacles were always on the center of the altar as the primary focal point?
  • Why has kneeling for Holy Communion disappeared?
  • Why are tabernacles disappearing from the center of the Churches and placed on the side?
  • Why are people receiving Communion in the hand?
  • Why are there lay-ministers of the Eucharist?
  • Why were these things changed?
  • If things were changed for the sake of “modern times” and “modern men”, has it resulted in record crowds of “modern men” flocking into the Churches to pray and receive the Sacraments?
  • Do we have record turnouts in our seminaries, monasteries, and convents?
  • Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of vocations in the Church?
  • Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of converts coming into the Church?
  • Was there a “vocation crisis” before these essential and fundamental things were changed?
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
But Palmas, don’t you see that as being a back handed or back door denial of the venerable teaching of the Church that the state of the soul of the minister (either ordinary or extraordinary) has absolutely no effect on the efficacy of the Sacrament? I ask this respectfully and I’m not being a wise-mouth. According to the Church, it doesn’t matter whether or not the priest is in a state of grace (and we’re all supposed to be when approaching the sacrament) as referent to the efficacy of the Sacrament. The priest receives the Sacrament, worthily or unworthily, and the EMHC does as well, also either worthily or not.

Frankly, the idea that consecrated hands ought to be the only ones that touch the Sacrament makes more “logical” sense.
Click to expand...
Hi Kirk. I don’t see it as being a denial of any teaching at all, and I really don’t see how you construed that. The Priest confects, not the Extraordinary Minister. The Extraordinary Minister is in reality nothing more than a tool and quite frankly a tool that I don’t really trust. I know that the Sacrament is valid and have no doubt about that. I just don’t necessarily trust lay people as much as I trust a Priest. Maybe, I needed to be more blunt in what I was trying to convey, but working in Law Enforcement, you learn not to place a whole lot of trust in the ordinary person.

Lets just leave it at that.
 
LilyM said:
What makes you think the character of the person distributing Communion has any bearing on the matter? If you understand the often-discussed concept that the Mass’s validity or worth has nothing to do with the character of the celebrant then surely that translates to the worth or validity of the Eucharist you receive.

A saying I heard in my childhood when asking about such matters, which has stuck with me, is that a diamond is a diamond whether you receive it from a master jeweller or a thief. Same with the Mass and the Eucharist.

Of course your points about greater chance of dropping or other misuse/abuse of the sacrament when received in the hand is worth considering, but then even if it were to be distributed on the tongue people may still equally receive it unworthily, they simply run less risk of physical profanation of the sacrament.
Click to expand...
As I tried to expalin to my good friend Kirk, I don’t in any way doubt the validity of the sacrament. I would rather receive for my own personal reasons from someone that I trust. I find it much easier to have trust in a Priest than in a lay person. Thats all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the sacrament.
 
LittleRose said:
Kleary,

Communion in the hand did not start as an abuse by disobedient clergy. There is record of this practice being accepted in the very early centuries of the church as far back as when St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote his Guide to the Liturgy. In section V “The Sacred Liturgy and Communion” paragraph 21-22 states the following about how to receive communion (Italics mine):

"In approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread, but make thy left hand a throne for the right as for that which is to receive a king. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest is evidently a loss to thee as if it were from one of thine own members…

After thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ and while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hat accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries. "

This document, by no means lacking in reverence, and filled in other passages with warnings to maintain proper reverence for the Eucharist, was written even before the liturgy that many were used to before Vatican II ever became a standard. These priests whom you term “Liberal” are not encouraging anything that has not already had precedent in the practices and disciplines of the Church. Nobody has forbidden anyone to continue receiving on the tongue. The dogma of transubstantiation has remained a constant, throughout these liturgical changes, and we are called to place our trust in God, that he will guide the decisions made by those who are the successors of the Twelve Apostles. Christ himself promised us that even the very gates of Hell would not overthrow the church which he built on the Rock of Peter. We must trust in that promise, even when we find it difficult to do so.
Click to expand...
Once again St Cyril. As I have posted before, he was writing concerning a practice at HIS church the Church in Jerusalem and not of awidespread or common practice of the early church. The early church had numerous variations in the way the Mass was celebrated, liturgies used and methods of receiving Holy Communion. Sy. Cyril, while a great man, an outstanding Bishop and a Doctor of the Church, did not then or now speak for the entire Church.
 
demerzel85 said:
At the end of the day it really is not which side has stronger arguments than the other. Valid Magestrial authority has allowed both methods.
Click to expand...
And there ends the argument no matter what anyone else says. The Church speaks; we listen and obey.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top