Vatican official suggests reconsidering Communion in the hand

[NewUlm1976_2000]

That bothers me much, much more. I know it is allowed to place the chalices on a side table for later purification, but I’ve seen some cases where they don’t even consume all of His Precious Blood.

That usually happens after mass. Not all Eucharistic Ministers can take that much alcohol into their system (too old for the “holy buzz” ).

It is finished by the priest or sacristan after mass. None of it goes to waste.

 

[john1863]

I’ve been watching this thread and I’ll give my thoughts…If you wish to receive the eucharist on your tongue…then you should…if you feel comfortable with receiving it in your hand…great.

This is, IMHO, much ado about nothing. It is the Body of Christ, and the big question is…Do you believe that?
Anything else is, again IMHO…window dressing.

John

 

[hmblsrvnt]

Same with the Eucharist. I NEVER touched His Divine Presence with my sinful hands in my entire life and NEVER will.

Sins professed by the tongue can be just as bad as those done by the hands.

 

[manualman]

That usually happens after mass. Not all Eucharistic Ministers can take that much alcohol into their system (too old for the “holy buzz” ).

It is finished by the priest or sacristan after mass. None of it goes to waste.

Ah, if only that were true in all cases. I have personally witnessed an EMHC dump the ‘surplus’ precious blood down the special sink (forget the name) in the sacristy after mass (back in college). She was also dismissive of me when I acted shocked and told it it was a sacrilege.

Face facts, we live in a time of unbelieveable ignorance of the faith. How ironic that it happens now when the literacy rate is perhaps the highest in history. I’m not so sure that there is any magic bullet that will fix it like some here seem to believe, but it is simply ignoring reality to say there is no problem.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Ah, if only that were true in all cases. I have personally witnessed an EMHC dump the ‘surplus’ precious blood down the special sink (forget the name) in the sacristy after mass (back in college). She was also dismissive of me when I acted shocked and told it it was a sacrilege.

Actually, that is allowed and what it is made for. That sink (forget the official name) goes straight into the ground. So any drops that cannot be drank or tiny crumbs that cannot be eaten are washed down there. It goes straight into the ground as it is supposed to be. While it may appear tasteless on the surface, that is the proper procedure if nobody wants to drink it all.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, that is allowed and what it is made for. That sink (forget the official name) goes straight into the ground. So any drops that cannot be drank or tiny crumbs that cannot be eaten are washed down there. It goes straight into the ground as it is supposed to be. While it may appear tasteless on the surface, that is the proper procedure if nobody wants to drink it all.

Sorry, but you are in error.

Purification of Sacred Vessels
51. After Communion the consecrated bread that remains is to be reserved in the tabernacle. Care should be taken with any fragments remaining on the corporal or in the sacred vessels. The deacon returns to the altar with the priest and collects and consumes any remaining fragments.

1. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant,** “the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar* all*** of the Blood of Christ which remains; he may be assisted, if needs dictate, by other deacons and priests.” (54) When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the diocesan bishop.
2. The chalice and other vessels may be taken to a side table, where they are cleansed and arranged in the usual way. Other sacred vessels that held the Precious Blood are purified in the same way as chalices. ***Provided the remaining consecrated bread has been consumed or reserved and the remaining Precious Blood has been consumed, “it is permissible to leave the vessels . . . ***suitably covered and at a side table on a corporal, to be cleansed immediately after Mass following the dismissal of the people.” (55)

usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4

The Precious Blood has to be consumed during Mass, before the chalices are placed on the table.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Time and time again through the prophets, God reminded His people that true reverence to Him means, not properly performed ceremonies, but a proper attitude of heart. This is just as true today.

True enough - but the “ceremonies” are there for a reason. They reflect and influence how and what we believe.**(CCC 1124) **The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: *lex orandi, lex credendi *(or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition. It stands to reason that allowing a loosening of the lex orandi that is accompanied by a loss in the lex credendi among the faithful, should not be taken lightly.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[rlg94086]

True enough - but the “ceremonies” are there for a reason. They reflect and influence how and what we believe.**(CCC 1124) **The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: *lex orandi, lex credendi *(or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition. Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Exactly. I think people get lax with the “ceremonies” because they lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the Body and Blood of Our Lord…not just bread and wine. The carelessness shown in handling His Body and Blood is a reflection of a lack of reverence IMO.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Ah, if only that were true in all cases. I have personally witnessed an EMHC dump the ‘surplus’ precious blood down the special sink (forget the name) in the sacristy after mass (back in college). She was also dismissive of me when I acted shocked and told it it was a sacrilege.

Face facts, we live in a time of unbelieveable ignorance of the faith. How ironic that it happens now when the literacy rate is perhaps the highest in history. I’m not so sure that there is any magic bullet that will fix it like some here seem to believe, but it is simply ignoring reality to say there is no problem.

Particles from the Eucharist and even cloths used for cleaning the chalices are immersed in a CISTERN for a set number of days. This is so that no traces of His Body and Blood are any longer cohesive.

 

[manualman]

Actually, that is allowed and what it is made for. That sink (forget the official name) goes straight into the ground. So any drops that cannot be drank or tiny crumbs that cannot be eaten are washed down there. It goes straight into the ground as it is supposed to be. While it may appear tasteless on the surface, that is the proper procedure if nobody wants to drink it all.

Thanks for being Exhibit A .

You are correct that it goes straight into the ground with no connection to the sewer. But that is to eliminate any possibility that the slightest trace of the precious blood ends up in a sewer. All the visible blood is to be drunk, the chalice is to be rinsed and the rinse water drunk and THEN it can be washed in that sink. Please don’t ever pour the blood of Christ down any drain!

 

[CreosMary]

Changing how we receive communion is not going to make reception by the faithful more reverent any more than changing the mass will accomplish it. We can change externals all we want. We will only attain reverence at mass when people have an interior change of heart and recognize they are in God’s presence. Let’s start catechizing and stop playing around with things that aren’t going to change anything.

Catholicism by its prayer life has always been spiritual AND physical by nature and we as humans act in a physical way when something is important. This is one of the main things that separate us from protestantism.
So external actions **are **important and are not just symbols of the spiritual but manifestations of them.
I agree bring back compulsory reception on the tongue!!

 

[Leeta]

Communion in the hand started as an act of disobedience in 1968. We only have an indult in this country to receive the Host in the hand, just like we have an indult for the Extraordinary Mass. It is a permission and is not the norm. The norm is on the tongue.

The way Communion is in the Hand is taught and practiced is also contrary to early Church practice. In the early church the Host was placed on the RIGHT hand and was consumed from it without the Host being picked up with the left hand. The right was the honorable side. It was unthinkable that our Lord would be picked up or touch the left hand. The hand was served as a paten.

The practice was also to adore our Lord in the right hand before consuming Him. To do this they bowed forward holding the right hand in front of them. Many began to touch their forehead to the Host before consuming Him. Then there developed problems with particles falling and eventually, a paten was used to catch them and communion was given on the tongue because it was more prudent to protect our Lord and so that abuses would be decreased.
There is liturgical development and communion on the tongue is a good example of that. We don’t need to pretend to bring back a practice, communion in the left hand, which never existed! The dissembling on the part of the disobedient priests in Holland and Germany in 1968 who alleged this to be an early Church practice is not surprising. Good fruit does not come from an evil tree!

 

[lmrein1]

When my daughter was preparing for the Sacrament of First Holy Communion, she told me that she wanted to receive on her tongue but her teacher told her that she had to receive in her hand. Speaking with the teacher got us nowhere so I went to speak to the priest. His attitude was that everyone else was receiving in the hand and he wanted there to be uniformity. I reminded him that Holy Mother Church gives us the option of recieving on our tonuge or in our hand and that by not teaching the children that they had a choice they (the priest and teacher) were taking that choice away from them. He responded that I was right and my daughter received Jesus on her tongue. A few of the other children did as well. When my second daughter asked me during Mass once why people don’t just receive in their hand I shushed her and told her we would talk about it after Mass, then she sneezed in her hand and I leaned over and said quietly, “That’s why”. She has received on her tongue ever since.
I think that the crises of Faith and the lack of reverance that is proper to Jesus in the Eucharist and the Mass is due to poor catechesis plain and simple. Over 30 years of poor and improper catechesis has many Catholics not believing in the True Presence, many Catholics thinking that the Church is a democracy and we can pick and choose what we want. The crisis in the Church today is primarily a crisis of education.

 

[seekerz]

When my daughter was preparing for the Sacrament of First Holy Communion, she told me that she wanted to receive on her tongue but her teacher told her that she had to receive in her hand. Speaking with the teacher got us nowhere so I went to speak to the priest. His attitude was that everyone else was receiving in the hand and he wanted there to be uniformity. I reminded him that Holy Mother Church gives us the option of recieving on our tonuge or in our hand and that by not teaching the children that they had a choice they (the priest and teacher) were taking that choice away from them. He responded that I was right and my daughter received Jesus on her tongue. A few of the other children did as well. When my second daughter asked me during Mass once why people don’t just receive in their hand I shushed her and told her we would talk about it after Mass, then she sneezed in her hand and I leaned over and said quietly, “That’s why”. She has received on her tongue ever since.
I think that the crises of Faith and the lack of reverance that is proper to Jesus in the Eucharist and the Mass is due to poor catechesis plain and simple. Over 30 years of poor and improper catechesis has many Catholics not believing in the True Presence, many Catholics thinking that the Church is a democracy and we can pick and choose what we want. The crisis in the Church today is primarily a crisis of education.

Am I correct in understanding that “dirty hands” in your opinion are the reason it’s better to receive on the tongue? Maybe I can then ask you this question: we sneeze through our noses and mouths right? So didn’t the germs that your daughter deposited into her hands come from the very place you think is cleaner?

This really has nothing to do with germs or dirt. Christ is really present in the Eucharist and human beings in this world are really unclean (physically and spiritually). If He deigns to come to us at all, who are we to quibble over which body part is more worthy to receive? Just look up how many different types of microbes inhabit the mouth.

Making this about anatomy and biology to me takes away from the honor we owe to Christ’s body. If the Church gives the choice, there is nothing wrong with either mode of receiving.

P.S. Allow me to add that it is sometimes impossible to separate Church tradition from the customs and beliefs of people at a certain place or time in history. In parts of the East, the right hand is considered honorable and the left unclean (across religions, for reasons I will not go into). For us in the West, not only does this have no scientific basis but it is not part of our culture, so to me there is nothing wrong in no longer allowing this belief to affect the way we receive.

 

[fdmilkis]

I don’t know… if Jesus gave me a loaf of bread I would with all respect raise my hand to receive the bread rather than “put it in my mouth”

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I don’t know… if Jesus gave me a loaf of bread I would with all respect raise my hand to receive the bread rather than “put it in my mouth”

Is this really analogous?

 

[MrS]

Communion in the hand started as an act of disobedience in 1968. We only have an indult in this country to receive the Host in the hand,** just like we have an indult for the Extraordinary Mass.** It is a permission and is not the norm. The norm is on the tongue.

No we don’t. The extraordinary form was never abrogated, as made clear by Benedict XVI. No indult is necessary.

Next step… we will need an indult for the NO.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

No we don’t. The extraordinary form was never abrogated, as made clear by Benedict XVI. No indult is necessary.

Next step… we will need an indult for the NO.

As I see it…those in the heirarchies that promote Communion-in-the-hand are not deeply insightful of what the Eucharist is…NOT what it REPRESENTS but WHAT IT IS. True belivers KNOW it is Jesus Himself who comes to us in that bread so to feed our souls for eternal life…to live for ALL ETERNITY.

The magnitude of the Eucharist should make us more aware as to how we must cherish It.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, “The most heartbreaking thing she experiences is seeing Communion in the hand.”

She is NOT alone…some of us feel the SAME as she.

 

[lmrein1]

At the time my daughter was only 6 yrs old and unable to comprehend at that time all of the theological (quibbling) and to tell you the truth I needed a quick and easy answer to give her and God provided one. Being a nurse, I know that there are more germs in the mouth than in the hand but as you’ve pointed out it really isn’t about germs is it?
When I began homeschooling my children I ordered a book from ABeka, Growing Up in Jesus’ Time, in which it stated that when a host invited people to sup, that host would place the first morsel of food on the tongue of the invited guests and this morsel of food was referred to as a sop. I find that very interesting.
When I see Jesus face to face I won’t rush up to Him and grab Him with my hands, I’ll fall prostrate on the ground as if struck dead like the great apostle.
We recognize that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist which is why we genuflect before Him and receive on our tongues. As mother Theresa said the greatest sacrilege that she has seen is Communion in the hand.

 

[stinkcat_14]

We recognize that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist which is why we genuflect before Him and receive on our tongues. As mother Theresa said the greatest sacrilege that she has seen is Communion in the hand.

Actually, I recognize that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, I genuflect before him (except in the communion line), and I usually receive him in the hand. Now of course, the Church if she wants, can change the ruling and if she does, I will abide by it. Just as when I attend the Maronite liturgy, I receive on the tongue.