Tongue or Hand?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As I said - it DOES NOT MATTER if Communion in the hand was a former practice in the early Church. Read previous postings- Protestants reintroduced it to show heresy. In other words the practice, after years of suppression and then re-introduction by Heretics in order to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood shows A DIFFERENT MEANING than it did in the early Church.

Ken

Would it not then be logical to deprive Catholics of the Bible, because (some) Protestants have given it an unCatholic “signification” by their belief that it is the sole supreme source of revelation ?​

ISTM that the argument against communion in the hand because of its “Protestant meaning”, is in essence an argument that the abuse of a thing takes away right use of it. But why should it ?

Besides, how many Catholics even know anything about Protestant Eucharistic theology or practice ? It can’t simply be assumed that communion in the hand among Catholics has the same meaning for Catholics, as it does or did or might have for this or that group of Protestants: yet it is commoly assumed to have it; with what justification, is not clear.

Besides, if Protestant influence in the Church at all is automatically a bad thing, we shall have to throw out a great deal in the Church - modern editions of the Fathers are greatly indebted to the the work of Protestant scholars. To be logical, we ought to cast out out the Summa Theologiae of St, Thomas - he frequently quotes the heathen Aristotle & the Jew Moses Maimonides. Many Fathers quote Plato; Augustine quoted the heathen Varro & the schismatic Tyconius.

Cast out all Catholic things influenced by non-Catholics - and very little would be left.

If heathens can be quoted by Catholic theologians, such as Thomas or the Fathers - why can a custom which did not after all begin among Protestants not be used among Catholics ? It can easily be given a Catholic signification if it lacks it.

FWIW, the SSPX are admirably careful in their liturgical practice & doctrine - they would never give communion in the hand. Yet they are judged not to be Catholics. Mgr. Lefebvre was rock-solid on Eucharistic dogma; he had no faith but that of the Church. Does that cast a shadow over reception in the hand or over the Mass ? Surely not. ##

 

[mystified]

The poster who commented on taking the Consecrated Host away from the altar makes a good argument for on-the-tongue. As a now deposed Orange County usher, several times I felt called upon to insist that the Host be consumed, rather than carried away. On one occasion, the EM–wife of a deacon–alerted me to an adult about to leave the church with a Host in his hand.
Personally, I have always preferred to receive Holy Communion from the celebrant, but do not object to being in the line of another priest or a deacon.

 

[pnewton]

There was no attempt to slant.

I apologize if I implied any ill intent on your part.

I must dismiss your article, though. When one makes statement about this being intolerable and that it could not have come from the Holy Ghost, I have no reason to believe the validity of such absurd claims. I doubt seriously that the author has personally spoken to the Holy Spirit to get His side. Indeed, I note that it seems hypocritical to castigate the bishops in the U.S. for pushing this method of reception in an article that pushes reception on the tongue with even greater fervor.

As to the history, 1100 years might be more significant if it represented the life of the Church and not only half of the life of the Church. It may be just the area I live in and or my limited exposure here on these forums, but I have never seen anyone push others to their method of reception, *except *the reverse of what the article claims, i.e. those who receive on the tongue pushing that on others.

Admittedly it wouldn’t make much sense for those who receive in the hand under the indult to be pushing that on those that don’t. However it is curious that I have noticed here several posters who try to persuade everyone to receive on the tongue, because the hand is just an indult and then hypocritical try to persuade them to attend an indult TLM.

Again, I am not saying you, because you have not. My experience has only been with my parish, a handful of others and two years on these forums.

 

[AJV]

You are very close to the truth on that. Not only did they "sanctify"themselves with the Blood, it got to the point where they would dip clothing and other articles in it, rub it in their hair, stand in front of the congregation and let it drip out of their mouth into their hands and rub it all over their bodies.etc. Those practices along with the belief that you** HAD** to receive under both species in order to get the full benefit of Holy Communion were the main reasons that the Chalice was taken away from the laity.

Dipping clothing in it? Driping out of their mouths and rubbing it on their bodies? Not sure about that one. Could you tell me your references for that?

Somehow, it seems some people have got the idea that people were taking dollops of the Precious Blood and rubbing it all over themselves. What happened was that with regard to the Precious Blood, they touched their lips and then their eyes and ears. They didn’t keep the Precious Blood in the mouths dip their fingers in it and then start sprinkling themselves. Outside of apologetic articles by opponents of Communion in the hand, I can see no evidence for that exaggeration, but if someone can provide it I would be grateful.

The practise anyway died out long before the Latin Church ceased to administer communion under both kinds, which was, as you said palmas, to avoid spillages of the Precious Blood and counteract errorneous opinions.

[By ‘Precious Blood’ I do not intend to imply that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is not present under either species.}

 

[AJV]

Although only one bishop spoke up in favour at the Synod, in certain parts of the world it is still not allowed. If you wish, I can try and compile a small (though possibly not complete) list and PM you with it.I have yet to even see communion in both kinds in a Catholic church.

 

[AJV]

At the most recent Synod of Bishops, only one bishop spoke up in favor of banning the practice…one. But, a dead horse only smells better for being well and truly beaten, so swing away.

Although only one bishop spoke up in favour at the Synod, in certain parts of the world it is still not allowed. If you wish, I can try and compile a small (though possibly not complete) list and PM you with it.I have yet to even see communion in both kinds in a Catholic church.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

What you do is right before the our father is cough in your hands making sure you cover them with spittle an mucus from you nose-i find that eliminates any discussion on whether we should hands…

ewww!!! that is nasty.lol But, thanks for the advice.

 

[PaulusRobertus]

Tongue, absolutely tongue.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Although only one bishop spoke up in favour at the Synod, in certain parts of the world it is still not allowed. If you wish, I can try and compile a small (though possibly not complete) list and PM you with it.I have yet to even see communion in both kinds in a Catholic church.

Thank you, AJV.

 

[Brenda_V]

However, my kids receive in their hands. One day, one said that she was afraid the host would fall from her tongue if she received on the tongue. So, I replied that I’ve seen people drop the host, but I’ve never seen Him fall from the tongue. They agreed with me.

Unfortionately, I have seen more people “drop” Jesus who receive on the tongue than those who receive in the hand! Poor form on the part of the receiver and/or the “giver”? I don’t know. It just disturbs me to see. It might have more to do with the fact that we receive standing now as opposed to kneeling although I have seen Jesus fall then too (only once and at my own First Communion over 30 years ago).

Brenda V.

 

[moira]

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.

I don’t get my information from ‘radical’ traditional sites. I just happened to run across that article and found it most interesting. And I do get my information from the Church. Receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand are both acceptable.
I just happen to receive on the tongue.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

On the tongue seems more reverent to me.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t get my information from ‘radical’ traditional sites. I just happened to run across that article and found it most interesting. And I do get my information from the Church. Receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand are both acceptable.
I just happen to receive on the tongue.

Very good to know.

 

[rj04]

I personally like to receive communion on the tongue. I suppose that’s just always the way I’ve done it. But I’ve wondered as I see people receiving communion in hand, is there a reason why people prefer it?

I prefer to receive on the tongue b/c that’s the norm according to the GIRM (general instruction of the roman missal). I also prefer to kneel to receive Communion, but only if there is an communion rail b/c in the United States, the norm is to receive while standing.

I’ve heard some people cite hygienic reasons before. Is everyone in that school of thought?

Hygenic reasons? haha! I know a terrific priest who, if at a restaurant, would get a glass w/ a mark of dirt would just make the sign of the cross over it and say, “nothing contagious now.”

Here are some thoughts on the reception of communion:

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament (Eucharist), nothing touches it but what is consecrated” (Summa, Pt III Q.Q2 Art. 3)

Council of Trent:“To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hands of the priest…”

Fr. John Hardon S.J.:“Whatever you do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God”

Bishop Juan Laise of San Luis, Argentina: Warns “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful.”

Mother Teresa: ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’"

Memoriale Domini: Pope Paul VI stated that: “The Apostolic See therefore vehemently urges bishops, priests and laity to carefully submit to the law (Communion on the tongue) which is still valid and which has been confirmed” (#16)

Pope Paul VI: In *Memoriale Domini *(May 29, 1969), the Pope recognized that Communion on the tongue was more conducive to faith, reverence, and humility.

History: Disobedience to the Pope; Communion in the hand was illegally introduced in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France and in the U.S. well before Pope Paul VI wrote “Memoriale Domini”. The Holy See firmly opossed the disobedient and abusive practice from the beginning.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here are some thoughts on the reception of communion:

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament (Eucharist), nothing touches it but what is consecrated” (Summa, Pt III Q.Q2 Art. 3) Is it clear that Saint Thomas is only speaking of the ordained in this context? The tongue touches it and the faithful don’t have consecrated tongues.

Council of Trent:“To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hands of the priest…” Reception in the hand doesn’t of necessity contradict this: one can “receive the Sacrament from the hands of the priest” in the hand. At best, this is a argument for only receiving Communion from a priest, not an EMHC. As a discipline imposed by the Church,this was an infallible discipline (a negative one, which simply means it can’t lead the faithful to impiety), but disciplines can change (infallible discipline doesn’t mean unchanging discipline) and the Church allows EMHCs and communion in the hand.

Fr. John Hardon S.J.:“Whatever you do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God”** Fr. Hardon’s subject opinion, not the mind of the Church.**

Bishop Juan Laise of San Luis, Argentina: Warns “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful.” Again, off the mark. A better argument for the use of patens.

Mother Teresa: ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’" Blessed Teresa of Calcutta’s subjective opinion.

Memoriale Domini: Pope Paul VI stated that: “The Apostolic See therefore vehemently urges bishops, priests and laity to carefully submit to the law (Communion on the tongue) which is still valid and which has been confirmed” (#16) He was the one that allowed communion in the hand. He didn’t have to do so.

Pope Paul VI: In *Memoriale Domini *(May 29, 1969), the Pope recognized that Communion on the tongue was more conducive to faith, reverence, and humility. See above.

History: Disobedience to the Pope; Communion in the hand was illegally introduced in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France and in the U.S. well before Pope Paul VI wrote “Memoriale Domini”. The Holy See firmly opossed the disobedient and abusive practice from the beginning.

**The Holy See now permits the practice and, indeed, it is the practice of the Holy See itself to allow people the choice when the receive at Mass at St. Peters, even from the hand of the Holy Father himself. **

People who wish to receive on the tongue have the liberty in the Church to do so. They should stop brow-beating those who don’t for simply exercising a liberty given them by the Church.

 

[rj04]

**The Holy See now permits the practice and, indeed, it is the practice of the Holy See itself to allow people the choice when the receive at Mass at St. Peters, even from the hand of the Holy Father himself. **

People who wish to receive on the tongue have the liberty in the Church to do so. They should stop brow-beating those who don’t for simply exercising a liberty given them by the Church.

I’m not “brow-beating” anyone. I know it’s an option, it’s just not the norm. Just like ppl who prefer to kneel for communion, those who receive on the hand cannot be refused communion. This was not something I was contesting.

I also realize that communion in the hand was the original way of doing things. That was stopped to help prevent abuses.

I just offered the quotes as an FYI… nothing more.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not “brow-beating” anyone. I know it’s an option, it’s just not the norm. Just like ppl who prefer to kneel for communion, those who receive on the hand cannot be refused communion. This was not something I was contesting.

I also realize that communion in the hand was the original way of doing things. That was stopped to help prevent abuses.

I just offered the quotes as an FYI… nothing more.

That’s cool. Don’t think I don’t have respect for each and every person that you quoted (well, I don’t really know anything about HE the Cardinal), esp. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and poor Pope Paul of happy memory (he had one tough papacy, may he rest in peace). My thing is that I genuinely think this is something we needlessly divide into camps over (the use of the term “liberal” has come up, for instance, and I, who receive in the hand, really resent that. For one thing, liberalism IS a defined heresy. For another, my friends and family would laugh hysterically at the notion of me being described as liberal). We shouldn’t because the Church permits this liberty. Also, I think a lot of “traditionalists” (again, check here for a better and balanced definition of “traditional Catholic:” catholic-legate.com/articles/cathtraditionalists.html) seem to pat themselves on the back and think themselves better Catholics because they only receive on the tongue or avoid the Chalice altogether or because they wear veils. They’ve done there reading and they can pull up any number of quotes, yes, but it seems, to hear some of them talk, that the Church only has the liberty to establish liturgies or liturgical disciplines that THEY like and of which they apporve, rather than the Church acting according to Her own wisdom. The Teaching Church is different from the Taught Church and some of us seem to forget that. Some of us think we’re “more Catholic than the Pope.” Not a good mindset. One more note: as great and good as Father Hardon was, there is NO WAY that he should have presumed to speak “magisterially” by saying that ending Communion in the hand would be pleasing to God! The method of reception is NOT a part of the revealed Deposit of the Faith. The good priest should have appended “I think” to the front of that comment. Blessed Teresa said it made her sad…perfectly reasonable.

 

[rj04]

My thing is that I genuinely think this is something we needlessly divide into camps over (the use of the term “liberal” has come up, for instance, and I, who receive in the hand, really resent that. For one thing, liberalism IS a defined heresy.

You’re exactly right. For the record, I generally receive in the hand from Eucharistic ministers - when I don’t have the option of a priest.

Too many people confuse “liberal” with “heterodox.” It’s not fair to label someone a “liberal” due to communion in the hand. It’s really about interior disposition and making sure no sacred pieces of the Host are still on the hand or have fallen (I was at Mass a few weeks ago when the altar server with a paten missed a dropped Host) elsewhere.

I think what it comes down to IMHO, is that reception of communion is too cavalier and many receive in the hand don’t really appear to know what they’re doing - like the man I saw at Mass last year with a pro-Che Guevera tee shirt. Regardless, communion on the tongue IMHO, is a more humble way to receive - and that’s not a judgment on anyone who disagrees.

Also, I think a lot of “traditionalists” seem to pat themselves on the back and think themselves better Catholics because they only receive on the tongue or avoid the Chalice altogether or because they wear veils. Some of us think we’re “more Catholic than the Pope.” Not a good mindset.

Haha… true… I know a few. I’ve probably been thrown into that category. But I prefer a solemn, reverent Novus Ordo (in the vernacular, no less! ) over a Trid Mass. On the other hand, I prefer the Trid Mass because there are too many liturgical abuses in my area, not because I think it’s a “holier” Mass.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[kleary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kleary forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Communion in the hand does not profess Catholic teaching.

I have to disagree.

What Catholic Teaching does Communion in the hand show us? Remember now that Protestants use the practice to show their denial of belief in the Real Presence and denial of the Catholic Ministerial Priesthood.

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kleary forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Communion in the hand does not profess Catholic teaching.

What Catholic Teaching does Communion in the hand show us? Remember now that Protestants use the practice to show their denial of belief in the Real Presence and denial of the Catholic Ministerial Priesthood.

Ken

It simply shows that one is employing the liberty granted by the Church. Let me re-post this for you and you can take it apart logically: "just because Protestants receive in the hand for heretical reasons doesn’t mean that Catholics cannot receive in the hand for non-heretical reasons. The action of receiving Holy Communion in the hand is, of itself, morally neutral. It can be vested with heretical intent or it can be vested with perfectly orthodox intent. And restricting reception to the tongue cannot definitively rule out heresy on the part of the recepient…or the priest for that matter."

And as Gottle pointed out:

**"ISTM that the argument against communion in the hand because of its “Protestant meaning”, is in essence an argument that the abuse of a thing takes away right use of it. But why should it ?

Besides, how many Catholics even know anything about Protestant Eucharistic theology or practice ? It can’t simply be assumed that communion in the hand among Catholics has the same meaning for Catholics, as it does or did or might have for this or that group of Protestants: yet it is commoly assumed to have it; with what justification, is not clear.**"

You haven’t replied to either.