Why communion in the hand(what is the motivation?)

[scylla]

Since this was off topic I decided to start a new thread. I like to ask questions like this as it exposes a lot and is good for discussion. Every practice should be examined per Vatican II to full express our faith. Sometime this has not been done and Vatican II has been misrepresented.
(removing altar rails, stuff like that)
Lets talk about Communion in the hand…

I am not sure why on needs to have a Christian reason as well as a Catholic reason for their choice of how to receive Holy Communion.

Can we not trust the HMC, who has provided us with these options and deemed them equally appropriate methods and equally revererent?

A Christian reason is a Catholic reason they are one and the same. Catholics are the original Christians the fullness of the Christian faith. I should have been more clear, as a Catholic they are synonymous for Catholics.
There are separated ecclesiastical communities that share some Christian elements, some here in the United States who have no idea that their faith traditions started just a bit ago.

I fully trust Holy Mother Church who in Her wisdom has allowed different practices, for many reasons. Sometimes prudence, sometimes pastoral, to curb abuse, many reasons.

I still seek the answer, why desire to receive in the hand? Is there a Christian reason which makes it superior to the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue. Please no antiquarianism, or human reasons, just give a Christian reason.
If there is none, that is ok, just be honest.

(Father Richard McBrien is honest enough to say that he rejects the structure of the Church and sees it as a power struggle)

Thanks,
Scylla

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I still seek the answer, why desire to receive in the hand? Is there a Christian reason which makes it superior to the traditional practice of receiving on the tongue. Please no antiquarianism, or human reasons, just give a Christian reason.
If there is none, that is ok, just be honest.

Thanks,
Scylla

AS I said on the other thread - since I have not said it was superior I guess I am the wrong one to ask.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Why receive on the tongue, which strays from the earliest practice of the Church.

Here’s the rub on those who bring up the “placing the first morsel on the tongue of a guest” when Christ instituted the Eucharist this was not the first morsel of the meal.

There is no less reverence in receiving in the hand than receiving on the tongue, I do both.

 

[mschrank]

The other day I received communion in the hand because everyone else was. I just didn’t feel like being different. When the Priest gave me the host, I had a few little crumbs all over my hand. I ate them or at least tried to… this is why I think in the hand is a bad idea. Just b/c you don’t want to disrespect Christ by accidentally letting His Body fall on the ground or else.

 

[Flank911]

It’s very easy to universally condemn communion in hand. It’s also overly simplistic and wrong. If one takes the time to do a bit of digging, and if one is open to considering options outside of their own preconceived ideas of what is good or bad (so long as they do not run afoul of the Church), a strong argument can be made to allow communion in hand.

While not definitive one way or the other, take a look at the following. The draft is thought-provoking and it will open-up your mind just a bit, perhaps in both directions:

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

All that said, I think options like communion in hand and female altar servers are deeply tarnished because they were (re)introduced under horrid palls of liturgical abuse. Doing so guaranteed there would always be detractors of both practices.

 

[tcraig]

I generally receive communion on the tongue, but will receive it in the hand on occasion. Personally, I think that in the way communion is received in the majority of churches today - standing - it is much easier to receive it in the hand.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The other day I received communion in the hand because everyone else was. I just didn’t feel like being different. When the Priest gave me the host, I had a few little crumbs all over my hand. I ate them or at least tried to… this is why I think in the hand is a bad idea. Just b/c you don’t want to disrespect Christ by accidentally letting His Body fall on the ground or else.

In my area the hosts use create very little (as in hardly distinguishable from dust) ‘crumbs’.

If the hosts used in your area leave clearly discernable ‘crumbs’ then when the priest/EMHC places one on your tongue it too is leaving a shower of ‘crumbs’ in the gap between the ciborium and your tongue.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

All that said, I think options like communion in hand and female altar servers are deeply tarnished because they were (re)introduced under horrid palls of liturgical abuse. Doing so guaranteed there would always be detractors of both practices.

These were bound to have their detractors no matter what because they were a change.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The other day I received communion in the hand because everyone else was. I just didn’t feel like being different. When the Priest gave me the host, I had a few little crumbs all over my hand. I ate them or at least tried to… this is why I think in the hand is a bad idea. Just b/c you don’t want to disrespect Christ by accidentally letting His Body fall on the ground or else.

One can over do this. Remember, it is only the Eucharist as long as it still resembles bread. Yes, I always check my hand for crumbs when I receive in the hand.

I wonder if the table the apostles first received at was without crumbs.

 

[scylla]

Why receive on the tongue, which strays from the earliest practice of the Church.

Here’s the rub on those who bring up the “placing the first morsel on the tongue of a guest” when Christ instituted the Eucharist this was not the first morsel of the meal.

There is no less reverence in receiving in the hand than receiving on the tongue, I do both.

It is easy to give reasons for giving on the tongue and none disparage the early Church. As tradition is a reflection of our understanding of the faith and in respect to our predecessors in the faith. (sometimes it is carelessly tossed about that people who receive on the tongue disrespect the early Church)

Here is the Catholic explanation of receiving on the tongue. As we can see there was a great deal of reverence already, in the way they describe receiving.

As we saw abuses arising and in order to reinforce Catholic belief we reflected that in our actions by receiving on the tongue.
This reinforces the belief that the Priest is another Christ giving us food as children and as is His office is giving us the Eucharist.
Since He is dedicated to that his hands are consecrated, made Holy just to give us the Body and Blood of Christ.
Our disposition to receive is in reflection of the Gospel that we must become humble and receive as children.

Now I am still waiting for the Catholic explanation for the motivation behind receiving in the hand.

(This is not to denigrate any of those who receive in the hand, I was never taught how to do so, so I never have in my life. If I was taught so I might have, but once I looked into it I could never justify doing so. There are probably many who receive reverently in the hand and have been taught properly how to do so.)

Thanks,
Scylla

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I am now certain this question of ‘motivation’ is foolish.

If we are working within what is allowed by the Church that is ‘motivation’ enough - and it is sound CATHOLIC ‘motivation’.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Flank991, I can see your point, but I still don’t get any benefit from recieving Communion In The Hand, or why anyone would want to. It seems far less practical if one believes in the Real Presence.

True, communion in the hand might have been common in the Early Church, but that liturgical practice evolved away as our knowledge of transubstantiation and the Real Presence. The Last Supper is often used as the model for CITH, but did the Apostles fully grasp at that moment exactly what was going on. John didn’t haul out his copy of the CCC and tell Peter that every morsel of the bread was all of Jesus, because this was the first time it happened, a full understanding this Sacrament probably would have only come at Pentecost–at the ealriest, shortly after the Ressurection.

After V2, many people jumped on the “Early Church” bandwagon, claiming that things like CITH and a third reading would bring back the charismatic nature of the Early Church. If that was their intent, they could have taken a much more different direction–for example, reforming the Breviary to look more pre-Trent ones; many scholars claim that our Breviary was “ruined” over the past few hundred years, being robbed of much of its theological depth.

However, at the end of the day, progress is not merely returning to old traditions, but rather seeking organic development of what we currently have. Sure, I like the Early Church, but brining things back from that era is not progress–during the first 300 years of the Church, the Pople lived in hiding, and was usually found and killed anyway; dozens of heresies ripped apart local Churches; there was no standard Canon of scripture; there was no authoritative missal, breviary, rites of the mass, etc.; we could go on all day.

For these, and many other reasons, I think that communion in the hand is a real step backward. Contrast this with what many consider a backward step, the Motu Proprio. Returning to the 1962 missal allows the Church to continue organic development, and has a viable future. CITH does not build on organic development or a heightened understanding of theology, but on a stubborn Evangelical-like mentality: “I want a Church just like the Early Church so I can be just like the Early Christians.” Not going to happen.

 

[scylla]

I am now certain this question of ‘motivation’ is foolish.

If we are working within what is allowed by the Church that is ‘motivation’ enough - and it is sound CATHOLIC ‘motivation’.

I would argue against that as my actions reflect what I believe. If I seek to do what I want according to what is possible it is a rejection of obedience and an elevation of desire above seeking obedience.

Is obedience observing in doing what is allowed?

I hope you didn’t mean it that way. If I don’t have to genuflect coming into Church, why do it at all? I am allowed not to? If I am allowed to not go to confession but once a year, should just do the minimum.
I believe we shouldn’t become scrupulous but we should seek to give the best to God, not just what is allowed.

Am I misrepresenting your response, please tell me I misunderstood you as freedom should also reflect in my actions showing what I believe.

lex orandi lex credendi, what do you believe about that and does it reflect in your actions?

So is there a Catholic reason that reflects our belief? I am looking for a reason for the action, I see Fr. McBrien gives reasons for his actions, can you give reasons for yours?
Everyone should know why they do certain things, especially in their observance of the faith.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I would argue against that as my actions reflect what I believe. If I seek to do what I want according to what is possible it is a rejection of obedience and an elevation of desire above seeking obedience.

Is obedience observing in doing what is allowed?

I hope you didn’t mean it that way. If I don’t have to genuflect coming into Church, why do it at all? I am allowed not to? If I am allowed to not go to confession but once a year, should just do the minimum.
I believe we shouldn’t become scrupulous but we should seek to give the best to God, not just what is allowed.

Am I misrepresenting your response, please tell me I misunderstood you as freedom should also reflect in my actions showing what I believe.

lex orandi lex credendi, what do you believe about that and does it reflect in your actions?

So is there a Catholic reason that reflects our belief? I am looking for a reason for the action, I see Fr. McBrien gives reasons for his actions, can you give reasons for yours?
Everyone should know why they do certain things, especially in their observance of the faith.

God Bless
Scylla

Lex orandi lex credendi

I believe the HMC would not set me up with allowed practices that actually demean the Faith and the Sacraments.

I believe the HMC does not jerk the faithful around that way.

 

[scylla]

Lex orandi lex credendi

I believe the HMC would not set me up with allowed practices that actually demean the Faith and the Sacraments.

I believe the HMC does not jerk the faithful around that way.

I agree, HMC does not set us up with practices intended to demean the faith and the Sacraments, but pastorally allows for the minimum of expression for those who are not expressing the faith with a full understanding of their actions.

Example, is it the best expression of our Catholic faith to only go to confession once a year and to receive communion once a year?

This is what the Church allows… it is not to lessen or demean communion\confession, but some people truly cannot do better. It is a pastoral allowance to bring people closer to eventually doing more.

Would anyone recommend receiving communion\confession once a year. This really is not a reflection of what we should be doing but just what we can do and sometimes for some people only can do.
But if everyone did it would it really be an expression of what we believe that we should confess as much as possible and receive when we can? I can receive almost every day and that is an expression of the Catholic faith.
Lex orandi lex credendi, how we express the faith is what we believe.

So again I ask what is the motivation to desire to receive that way?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Flank911]

It is easy to give reasons for giving on the tongue and none disparage the early Church. As tradition is a reflection of our understanding of the faith and in respect to our predecessors in the faith. (sometimes it is carelessly tossed about that people who receive on the tongue disrespect the early Church)

Here is the Catholic explanation of receiving on the tongue. As we can see there was a great deal of reverence already, in the way they describe receiving.

As we saw abuses arising and in order to reinforce Catholic belief we reflected that in our actions by receiving on the tongue.
This reinforces the belief that the Priest is another Christ giving us food as children and as is His office is giving us the Eucharist.
Since He is dedicated to that his hands are consecrated, made Holy just to give us the Body and Blood of Christ.
Our disposition to receive is in reflection of the Gospel that we must become humble and receive as children.

Now I am still waiting for the Catholic explanation for the motivation behind receiving in the hand.

(This is not to denigrate any of those who receive in the hand, I was never taught how to do so, so I never have in my life. If I was taught so I might have, but once I looked into it I could never justify doing so. There are probably many who receive reverently in the hand and have been taught properly how to do so.)

Thanks,
Scylla

Asked and answered.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I agree, HMC does not set us up with practices intended to demean the faith and the Sacraments, but pastorally allows for the minimum of expression for those who are not expressing the faith with a full understanding of their actions.

Example, is it the best expression of our Catholic faith to only go to confession once a year and to receive communion once a year?

This is what the Church allows… it is not to lessen or demean communion\confession, but some people truly cannot do better. It is a pastoral allowance to bring people closer to eventually doing more.

Would anyone recommend receiving communion\confession once a year. This really is not a reflection of what we should be doing but just what we can do and sometimes for some people only can do.
But if everyone did it would it really be an expression of what we believe that we should confess as much as possible and receive when we can? I can receive almost every day and that is an expression of the Catholic faith.
Lex orandi lex credendi, how we express the faith is what we believe.

So again I ask what is the motivation to desire to receive that way?

God Bless
Scylla

Just so you know - the term harassment is beginning to come to mind.

I have answered you several times yet you keep asking - why is that?

 

[Flank911]

Flank991, I can see your point, but I still don’t get any benefit from recieving Communion In The Hand, or why anyone would want to. It seems far less practical if one believes in the Real Presence…

How is COT any better or more practical than CIH? What does the Real Presence have to do with COT versus CIH?

Are you suggesting that our hands are not clean enough or worthy enough to accept the Blessed Sacrament yet our mouths are? None of us are worthy to receive the Blessed Sacrament based on our own virtue, it’s a gift. I have no idea why it would be any less of a gift if received COT, as if our mouths were somehow more worthy than our hands?

Are you suggesting it’s easier to profane the Blessed Sacrament if we receive CIH? As a child I went to communion with a bone-dry mouth, received COT, went back to my pew, took the host from my tongue and inspected it, before consuming it. COT did not prevent me from doing this. In fact, it probably facilitated this.

 

[Flank911]

Lex orandi lex credendi

I believe the HMC would not set me up with allowed practices that actually demean the Faith and the Sacraments.

I believe the HMC does not jerk the faithful around that way.

So very true.

How could the Church allow any practice that in any way facilitated the profaning of the Blessed Sacrament?

How could the Church even allow any practice that was in any way inferior to other practices when it came to the Blessed Sacrament? Not different, but inherently inferior?

If one believes the Church can/does, then I would suggest it’s far more likely they need to change rather than the Church.

 

[stmaria]

It’s very easy to universally condemn communion in hand. It’s also overly simplistic and wrong. If one takes the time to do a bit of digging, and if one is open to considering options outside of their own preconceived ideas of what is good or bad (so long as they do not run afoul of the Church), a strong argument can be made to allow communion in hand.

While not definitive one way or the other, take a look at the following. The draft is thought-provoking and it will open-up your mind just a bit, perhaps in both directions:

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

All that said, I think options like communion in hand and female altar servers are deeply tarnished because they were (re)introduced under horrid palls of liturgical abuse. Doing so guaranteed there would always be detractors of both practices.

This is from the link provided. Everyone should read it.

"The conclusion is rather clear: We should get rid of this custom. We
should forbid or at least discourage the Communion-on-the-tongue practice
whereby the faithful are not allowed to “take and eat,” and should return to
the pristine usage of the Fathers and Apostles, namely, Communion in the hand.

 It is a compelling story.** It is too bad that it is not true.**
 The sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom whereby only the

priest-celebrant gives Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the
laity receive It from him, is an Apostolic tradition. (1)
A more rigorous study of available evidence from Church history and
from writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion
in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and
eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.
Rather,
facts seem to point to a different conclusion: Pope St. Leo the Great
(440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments
on the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel he speaks of Communion in the
mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by
faith.” (2) The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but
as if this were a well established thing.
A century and a half later Pope St. Gregory the Great (died in 604) is
another witness. In his dialogues he relates how Pope St. Agapitus performed
a miracle during Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into
someone’s mouth."