tongue or hand?

[dilan]

As the OP I was raised a protestant, so I had to make a decision on how to receive when I converted. Since both ways are allowed, I think it’s important that we use this liberty to receive in the way that best keeps our thoughts and minds focused on the real presence of Christ.

For some it is better to receive in the hand because they experience that as less complicated and less stressful. Then that is the best way for them to keep focus on the important parts of the moment.

For others it is better to receive on the tongue, because doing what that they never do elsewhere or in other situations is the best way for them to be reminded of how special this moment is when Christ comes to us.

St. Francis expressed the way Christ is present at communion as “He hides himself under the little form of bread.” The reality of it is truly awesome!

 

[jazzy_987]

Heh. You’ll find that this is a highly debatable subject. There are many who argue that it one should only receive on the tongue. Others who say that it doesn’t matter either way: on the tongue or in the hand.

There was a time in the early Church that it was acceptable to receive in the hand, at least according to St. Cyril of Jerusalem. * “When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen” * (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateches. Mystagog, V.1)

So is the left hand supposed to be on top or the right hand or vice versa? I’ve always thought it was left on top of right hand, someone told me that before.

 

[Cobbfmly]

So is the left hand supposed to be on top or the right hand or vice versa? I’ve always thought it was left on top of right hand, someone told me that before.

Interesting, I didn’t catch that. I was taught left on top of right, which is not what this says. I would hate to be trying to lift Jesus to my mouth using my left hand as am right handed. Maybe ST. Cyril meant for Jesus to be lifted directly into the mouth rather than being picked up with the other hand.

 

[palmas85]

St. Cyril also gives an interesting method for receiving the Precious Blood:

1. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.

St Cyril was speaking of the method in his particular Church, the Church at Jerusalem. There were different methods in the different Churches during his time. No uniformity or little uniformity at all until much later when the Roman Rite was solidified as the Rite of all the Churches.

I know, a very simplified version and one sure to draw heat from the Orthodox, but correct.

 

[Vittorio23]

So is the left hand supposed to be on top or the right hand or vice versa? I’ve always thought it was left on top of right hand, someone told me that before.

Hm. Good catch and good question. I do not know. I’d be interested if there are any other documents that would discuss this.

My only thought would be the same as Cobbfmly’s.

Maybe ST. Cyril meant for Jesus to be lifted directly into the mouth rather than being picked up with the other hand.

 

[otjm]

I don’t understand the theological reasons for not drinking from the cup… I’ve been trying to think and drawn blanks

any answers on the above would be appreciated, not just from the original posters.

S

The “theological” reason given is that Christ is truly and fully present, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in either species and therefore one "needs’ to only receive one; they seem to feel at times that the 450 year old heresy is somehow still around and needs to be defeated. While it is theologically true, it is not how Christ presented the Eucharist nor is it how the early Church continued what He instituted.

I often wonder, if Christ Himself were to suddenly appear at the priest’s side and offered the Cup, how many would refuse it and pass Him by; one is reminded that the disciples on the road to Emmaeus did not recognize Him during the whole walk and discourse.

It is opetional, and certaily not “necessary”. For that matter, it is not “necessary” to receive the Eucharist more than once a year…

 

[Abira]

The “theological” reason given is that Christ is truly and fully present, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in either species and therefore one "needs’ to only receive one; they seem to feel at times that the 450 year old heresy is somehow still around and needs to be defeated. While it is theologically true, it is not how Christ presented the Eucharist nor is it how the early Church continued what He instituted.

I often wonder, if Christ Himself were to suddenly appear at the priest’s side and offered the Cup, how many would refuse it and pass Him by; one is reminded that the disciples on the road to Emmaeus did not recognize Him during the whole walk and discourse.

It is opetional, and certaily not “necessary”. For that matter, it is not “necessary” to receive the Eucharist more than once a year…

thanks for that… for me I prefer to receive in both…I’ve never seen any Anglican just take one in my whole life… do they just get up before the cup gets to them or just say no to the person with it.

I think it is more important to think about the way Jesus taught us then to be worried about whether or not people believe he is Fully present in one or both species… I don’t think Jesus would care about details like that… but then it is the first time I’ve haers of choosing to receive just in one.

Thanks,

S

 

[mike_sieber]

I stated earlier that I receive in the hand because our parish doesn’t make use of the paten anymore and the Host was once dropped on the floor accidentally instead of being placed on my tongue.

I know several people who look down on those who take via the hand (not here, just personally) because it’s less reverent and because it’s self communication.

I’m not trying to be smart here, but when Jesus passed the bread and wine around at the last supper was it his body and blood then or just bread and wine.

And did the apostles take it in their hands or is there evidence that Jesus “fed” them.

I really get tired of people looking down their noses at me because I’m doing something the Church said was proper to do. (Again, not here, just people I know).

 

[luv_pis]

In our diocese (Diocese of Cubao, the Philippines), the receiving of Communion by hand was temporarily enforced…well, maybe not enforced, probably strongly recommended, because of the Bird Flu scare a few years ago. You see, there is the distinct possibility that the fingers of the priest/lay minister can accidentally touch the tongue and thus can be a route of transmission of the virus.

Since then, most of the laity in our community prefer to receive Holy Communion by hand, even today.

 

[luv_pis]

Hm. Good catch and good question. I do not know. I’d be interested if there are any other documents that would discuss this.

My only thought would be the same as Cobbfmly’s.

In our diocese, what is being taught is, when one is right-handed, to have the left hand over the right hand. The left hand receives the host, and the right hand picks the Host for bringing it towards the mouth. It is a quite convenient practice.

Although, I think I can see St. Cyril’s point if his intention is like what Cobbfmly said. Handling the host one time has less chance of leaving crumbs (which are also the body and blood of Christ ) than handling it two times.

 

[Michael_Welter]

I typically receive in the hand, then look at it and say, silently, “I love You.” I then consume. I don’t consider the cup to be unsanitary, since it contains the blood of the Creator of all life. How can we get sick when drinking His blood? That doesn’t even make sense, when you think about it.

 

[Lorrie]

I receive on the tongue, never the hand. For me personally I feel that I’m not worthy of “handling” the host. I also don’t want to be responsible if a crumb falls.

 

[Hellisreal]

Catholics receive the host mostly as small, round wafers. I prefer to receive it on the tongue, but do not feel any spiritual pride over those who receive it in hand.:nope:

I do not drink from the chalice as I am a recovered alcoholic, 23 years sober. An exception might be in those rare cases where a non-alcoholic grape juice is used (usually by priests who are themselves alcoholics:yup:

Got any stats on your bold accusations against Priests?

 

[Hellisreal]

You gotta love Ravyn.

She says it loud and proud!

Quoted for truth.

IMO–not to offend or condemn anyone else–but this is how I see it:

it is not WINE and WAFER, it is BLOOD and BODY. And I cannot see children or alcoholics or those who are allergic to wheat violating any laws or physical restrictions by receiving it!
If Jesus healed the sick when He was here on earth then He certainly can make sure I do not catch a cold when partaking of His Body and Blood-if He wants to!
And as far as not touching it with anything unconsecrated—what about your tongue and mouth? Have they been consecrated to receive it?

Ravyn

 

[anniemart]

Got any stats on your bold accusations against Priests?

A priest once shared with me that he is a recovering alcoholic …he dilutes it with just a bit more water before consuming it…he truly is an inspiration.

by the way, I volunteer in the parish office often and just recently a woman called asking for the name of the wine we use…her elderly mother so enjoyed it that she wanted to know the brand so she could drink a glass of it nightly (to help her sleep she said)…I gave Father the call…don’t know what happened after that…

 

[Hellisreal]

A priest once shared with me that he is a recovering alcoholic …he dilutes it with just a bit more water before consuming it…he truly is an inspiration.

by the way, I volunteer in the parish office often and just recently a woman called asking for the name of the wine we use…her elderly mother so enjoyed it that she wanted to know the brand so she could drink a glass of it nightly (to help her sleep she said)…I gave Father the call…don’t know what happened after that…

This is no evidence to back up the statement ----“usually by priests who are themselves alchoholics” By the OP.

Her elderly mother so enjoyed it- she called to find out the 'brand"

I am hoping she is a Catholic?

*As if she only had it that one time? *I will hope she is a very new convert…

 

[maryjk]

"Andruschak:

I do not drink from the chalice as I am a recovered alcoholic, 23 years sober. An exception might be in those rare cases where a non-alcoholic grape juice is used (usually by priests who are themselves alcoholics

Got any stats on your bold accusations against Priests?

I don’t think he was trying to say that Priests are alcoholics. But that he receives mustum (low alcohol wine) when there is an alcoholic priest.

Andruschak and I always chime in when people are talking about receiving the host and not from the Chalice or receiving from the Chalice and not the Host. Andruschak is a recovering alcoholic and I have Celiac disease. He doesn’t receive from the Chalice and I don’t receive the Host.

 

[Ruben]

I saw Mother Angelica last night on EWTN Mother Angelica’s Classics. The timing was perfect as I tuned in to her show. At that moment I heard Mother take a call from a teenage girl. The girl told Mother that her father receives communion on the tongue but that she prefers in the hand. The girl then asked mother what she thought was most appropriate. I remember clearly the pained expression on Mother’s face as she paused in reflection upon the question. She admitted that the practice of communion in the hand is allowed even by the Holy See. Mother Angelica then expressed how she felt about it and it was not in the least bit good. It was fairly clear that by her expression she found it to be irreverent. She went into a little catechesis on the reality and mystery of the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ that the Holy Eucharist is. She made it clear that she believed that we should receive on the tongue and that she knew that there were clergy that would go into an apoplexy (her word) if they heard her say that. She ended up advising the caller that it would be showing proper reverence to receive on the tongue.

Like Mother said, it is clear that communion in the hand is allowed, but look around you today in the Church and see for yourself how many other things are “allowed” and are each one of these practices you see around you at Mass a Holy practice? It’s true that the recent two Popes gave/give communion in the hand. In a sense they are dealing with an almost unstoppable force and so even some things may be outside the immediate influence of the Pope. I remember hearing an interview from the mid 90’s once where the interviewee said it was broadly known that Pope John Paul II never wanted communion in the hand (or altar girls), but that because the practice was already adopted by entire countries by that time his advisors told him in effect the practice had reached unstoppable proportions and so the Pope acquiesced.

I know many receive communion in the hand and do so with a disposition of good intention, but in charity it should be pointed that this practice was introduced out of a spirit of misdirection as many other irreverences have been that have made their way into our Church. We see it time and time again in our churches how little the sacred is acknowledged these days.

 

[tee_eff_em]

(I would say it is allowed in a similar way that married clergy were tolerated by The Holy See in the Eastern Churches before the schism)

Bah.
We now return to the topic at …um… hand.

:twocents:
tee

 

[mike_sieber]

I saw Mother Angelica last night on EWTN Mother Angelica’s Classics. The timing was perfect as I tuned in to her show. At that moment I heard Mother take a call from a teenage girl. The girl told Mother that her father receives communion on the tongue but that she prefers in the hand. The girl then asked mother what she thought was most appropriate. I remember clearly the pained expression on Mother’s face as she paused in reflection upon the question. She admitted that the practice of communion in the hand is allowed even by the Holy See. Mother Angelica then expressed how she felt about it and it was not in the least bit good. It was fairly clear that by her expression she found it to be irreverent. She went into a little catechesis on the reality and mystery of the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ that the Holy Eucharist is. She made it clear that she believed that we should receive on the tongue and that she knew that there were clergy that would go into an apoplexy (her word) if they heard her say that. She ended up advising the caller that it would be showing proper reverence to receive on the tongue.

Like Mother said, it is clear that communion in the hand is allowed, but look around you today in the Church and see for yourself how many other things are “allowed” and are each one of these practices you see around you at Mass a Holy practice? It’s true that the recent two Popes gave/give communion in the hand. In a sense they are dealing with an almost unstoppable force and so even some things may be outside the immediate influence of the Pope. I remember hearing an interview from the mid 90’s once where the interviewee said it was broadly known that Pope John Paul II never wanted communion in the hand (or altar girls), but that because the practice was already adopted by entire countries by that time his advisors told him in effect the practice had reached unstoppable proportions and so the Pope acquiesced.

I know many receive communion in the hand and do so with a disposition of good intention, but in charity it should be pointed that this practice was introduced out of a spirit of misdirection as many other irreverences have been that have made their way into our Church. We see it time and time again in our churches how little the sacred is acknowledged these days.

Actually, I did some research on this and found that the practice of receiving in the hand is not something new that was recently added as some people think. It actually goes way back to many of the early church fathers and saints.

To say that receiving in the hand is irreverent is an opinion not shared by the Church or proved by Tradition. As much as I respect other’s opinions on this matter, I submit myself to the Church and She has spoken on this matter. Both ways are acceptable.

That’s the only authority I need.