Tongue or Hand?

[mlchance]

Yeah well, we’re still discussing. The church did not ban opinions.

Discuss away, but keep in mind opinions that conflict with the Church are wrong. If anyone says the only acceptable way to receive is on the tongue, they’re wrong. If anyone says the only acceptable way to receive is in hand, they’re wrong. Rome has said both are acceptable.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[LittleRose]

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.

True. My point is that, historically speaking, there is more than one “right” way to recieve communion. Different methods have been preferrred in different places (and in different time periods). We should not distrust our bishops when the preference shifts from one valid discipline to another.

 

[LilyM]

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.

But what exactly is there to trust? That EMsHC can distribute it to you properly? That they can treat the sacrament with the appropriate reverence?

I see no evidence that EMsHC are less reverent or less able to distribute properly, in fact what I see is a direct hand-in-hand correlation between laxness and irreverence on the part of the priests of a particular parish and its EMsHC.

So you really have no reason to distrust EMsHC while trusting the priests who permit their abuses, who are almost invariably as abusive themselves.

 

[Michael_Welter]

When you receive Communion in your hand, do you not then take the Host up with the other hand, then place Him on your tongue?

Yes, I do. So what is your point? The Church has allowed both methods of receiving our Lord. It’s a matter of personal preference. No two people are alike, and we shouldn’t try to force everyone to be alike. If God wanted us all to be alike, He would have created us that way.

 

[palmas85]

But what exactly is there to trust? That EMsHC can distribute it to you properly? That they can treat the sacrament with the appropriate reverence?

I see no evidence that EMsHC are less reverent or less able to distribute properly, in fact what I see is a direct hand-in-hand correlation between laxness and irreverence on the part of the priests of a particular parish and its EMsHC.

So you really have no reason to distrust EMsHC while trusting the priests who permit their abuses, who are almost invariably as abusive themselves.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I still prefer to receive from someone, Priest or Deacon, who is ordained, and who has made vows to the Church. Based on that fact alone, I would tend to trust them more. Yes, I know, old fashioned in these modern times, but I do think that vows, and Sacraments like Holy Orders do mean something, and we as the laity should respect that.

It does appear to me though, that you do have a problem with the ordained Priesthood. Why is that?

 

[palmas85]

True. My point is that, historically speaking, there is more than one “right” way to recieve communion. Different methods have been preferrred in different places (and in different time periods). We should not distrust our bishops when the preference shifts from one valid discipline to another.

Oh yeah, granted. I just get tired of people bringing up old St Cyril as if his is the only authoratative writing when they want to justify the validity of receiving in the hand thats all. I don’t know how many times over the years people have brought him up and said, See, the early church did it that way" Nyah Nyah

You’d be surprised at how many think he was speaking about the entire church and not just his in Jerusalem. Of course that is probably why he is brought up with so much regularity. People don’t realize exactly what he was writing about and why, and think that others don’t as well.

Lack of catechisis and a lack of historical knowledge and understanding, three things that really threaten the church in these enlightened times.

 

[kleary]

As much as I dislike Communion in the hand, it does bear pointing out that it was a common practice at one point in the Church. You can read St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s writings on Communion where he explains how to properly receive–in the hand, making your hands as a throne, right hand under left, etc.

Yes and it was labled as an abuse some time later and altogether banned.

The reason it was introduced in the 16’th century by Protestants was to show their disbelief in the Real Presence and also to announce publicly that we are all priests.

When it was reintroduced in the Catholic Church it was done by disobedient clergy aping the Protestant Communion Service practice.

Ken

 

[Michael_Welter]

When it was reintroduced in the Catholic Church it was done by disobedient clergy aping the Protestant Communion Service practice.

Do you have some documentation of that claim?

 

[kleary]

***“Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.” “Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses” ***

---

This seems very abusive in itself to rub the Prescious Blood on parts of your face. No wonder it was banned altogether.

Ken

 

[kleary]

I couldn’t agree with you more! As Jesus said in Matthew 15: 18-20, “But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” Or as James says in James 3: 8-10, “but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. This need not be so, my brothers.” (both verses from the NAB). I definitely need to pray more for God’s grace to overcome sins of the tongue than sins with my hands! And the sins of the tongue are the one’s I need to confess the most.

It is not a matter of your mouth being cleaner than your hands. What I see is a matter of lex orendi - lex credendi being violated when the liturgical practice of Communion in the hand has a meaning in itself. If Protestants re-introduced it in order to show disbelief in the Catholic Priesthood and the Real Presence then why do we do it?

When it came from abuse, in order to show a false ecumenism with heretics, then why buy into it and why even support it?

Ken

 

[kleary]

how did the apostles receive at the last supper?

Like the Bishops that they were.

Ken

 

[kleary]

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):

The quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem shows that Communion in the hand was a practice in the Church during his time. This is not an issue.

The issue is how it resurfaced after it was banned throughout the Church.

History shows it was re-introduced by Protestants to show disbelief in the real presence and the Catholic priesthood. And Annibale Bugnini himself writes the truth that it resurfaced in the Catholic Church through abuse- mimicking Protestant practice- and by the time the Church sought to suppress the abuse it was too late for it became too widespread.

Ken

 

[Servulus]

Do you have some documentation of that claim?

Some of the history is traced here:
members.iinet.net.au/~raphael/hand.html

Hope that helps.

 

[pnewton]

To go back to the original question, without regard to judging how our fellow Catholics receive communion, I had a further clarification on why I receive in my hand. I said that I like to keep my head bowed and not lift my eyes up when I approach the altar. I believe this is because I was not rasied Catholic. As a Baptist, I never prayed without my eyes closed and head bowed. I have an adjustment to the way Catholics pray. Specifically, during the Eucharistic prayers, I like to keep my head bowed as much as possible. I see that Catholics say all their prayers looking forward at the altar. Perhaps this is why I have preference for in the hand

In any case, I appreciate the choice in the matter, so that I may show reverence as I believe to be more reverant. If this choice is ever removed, I will not complain one bit, though, and follow however I am instructed.

 

[kleary]

Do you have some documentation of that claim?

"At the beginning of the liturgical reform there was a trend in some countries toward the distribution of communion by placing the consecrated bread in the hand of the recipient. The practice soon spread, and bishops and conferences found themselves appealing to the Holy See. **Initially there was strong opposition (from Rome). **But the Bishops found it difficult to suppress the new practice, and their requests continued, especially from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Because the requests were so insistant, the Holy Father decided to giver premission for the practice to the episcopal conferences that asked for it.
“The Reform of the Liturgy” by Annibale Bugnini-

“The provenance of Communion in the hand The origin of the current practice of communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation”. Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case, that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and His Church, and of the reality of the Catholic Priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. It is well known that communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical= authority. The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s Faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion. When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear. We can summarize that the practice of communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.” From Una Voce

Ken

 

[kleary]

Yes, I do. So what is your point? The Church has allowed both methods of receiving our Lord. It’s a matter of personal preference. No two people are alike, and we shouldn’t try to force everyone to be alike. If God wanted us all to be alike, He would have created us that way.

It has nothing to do with personal preference.

Communion on the tongue is the norm. In the Hand is an INDULT.

Communion in the hand was re-introduced in Western Christianity to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood by Protestants. This CANNOT BE DENIED.

It resurfaced in our Church by disobedient clergy aping the Protestant practice.

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It has nothing to do with personal preference.

Communion on the tongue is the norm. In the Hand is an INDULT.

Communion in the hand was re-introduced in Western Christianity to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood by Protestants. This CANNOT BE DENIED.

It resurfaced in our Church by disobedient clergy aping the Protestant practice.

Ken

Aping Protestant practice…you trot “Protestant” red herrings out far too much.

To anyone who wants a balanced read on this topic, see the following. And do look at the footnotes:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[kleary]

And I have seen people who do not even do the hand practice accurately. A woman was holding her baby in her arms and stuck out one hand and licked the Sacred Host off of her hand.

Another popped the Sacred Host into her mouth like an M&M.

Still others reach out and take the Sacred Host with two fingers as they have a child holding one of their hands.

Ken

 

[PerkyCurlz]

I receive either way, depending on the circumstances.

how did the apostles receive at the last supper?

No offense, but I don’t recall Jesus saying something along the lines of, “Here, let me feed you this bread”. To quote Matthew 26:26:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

And doesn’t the priest reflect Jesus’ words when he prays the following at each mass?

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.”

 

[MusicMan]

The current Pope has written about the practice of receiving in the hand. His writings indicate that he has no problems with people receiving in the hand. They also indicate that he has no problems with people receiving on the tongue. If it’s OK with Pope Benedict, then it is an acceptable practice. End of story.

Then again, I receive in the hand because the EMsHC at my church struggle with people receiving on the tongue. Go figure.