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

[japhy]

I receive communion in the hand because that’s the way 90% of the people receive in the two parishes I go to. I prefer receiving on the tongue, but I am afraid that I would be focusing too much on myself, on “making a point,” if I went up to receive on the tongue now. Not saying this is rational, but it is my concern. I do understand that in and of itself, COTT can’t inherently be more reverent than CITH. The manner in which you receive doesn’t trump the disposition of your soul.

Don’t think of it as “focusing too much on [your]self”. Think of it as doing something you feel (as you said) is more reverent for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

What got me to switch was that I kept seeing pieces of the host remain in my hand. As I was consuming those small fragments from my hand, I realized there was a better way.

 

[tcraig]

This is curious to me, why do people get bothered? It is because deep down inside you know something is wrong? If there is nothing wrong then give an explanation and it will all make sense.

It bothers me because I see questions like this which subtly imply that someone who receives communion in the hand is doing so because they somehow have a lesser belief in the True Presence, or that they’re a modernist, etc. And while that may not be your intent, that’s how you’re coming across by saying that someone should provide a “Catholic” or “Christian” reason for receiving in a particular way.

It seems that for some, it’s never “enough” that a Catholic is simply doing what the Catholic Church allows. That should be reason enough.

 

[scylla]

It bothers me because I see questions like this which subtly imply that someone who receives communion in the hand is doing so because they somehow have a lesser belief in the True Presence, or that they’re a modernist, etc. And while that may not be your intent, that’s how you’re coming across by saying that someone should provide a “Catholic” or “Christian” reason for receiving in a particular way.

It seems that for some, it’s never “enough” that a Catholic is simply doing what the Catholic Church allows. That should be reason enough.

I am sorry I did not mean to give the impression that receiving in that way is the reason someone gets bothered. That was not my intention at all.

I was making the point that we should be able to ask and investigate the our motivations. Why should we get bothered unless our motivations are not good and we are hiding something.

There should be no negative reaction to questioning as all it is is seeking truth. That is kinda crazy to me, to get offended just because someone is curious about motivation. Only if our motivation is not truly honest or something we are not proud of would someone get offended.

This thread is not about comparing the reception of communion or bashing how we receive it at all. It is about motivation and the reflection of our belief in our actions.

(this is not, this is not, about comparison of practice or an insult of people’s actions)

It just has been derailed in some posts, but the intent of my questions is to have some people explain their motivation for their particular support of practice. A Catholic reason is a reason that reflects their belief in Christ by their actions. But since some have refused that I am open to other reasons.

If you state that you receive in the hand because that is what they taught you in RCIA and you are being obedient to the Priest who taught you, then fine. That is a good answer.

If you state that you receive in the hand because you crush the host and desecrate it later, then that is an honest answer.

I have given numerous examples of responses I could think of, I am just curious.

I am not posting to judge your individual actions but I am genuinely interested in motivation and reception. Why do people prefer certain practice and what is the motivation behind their attacks or support.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Eilish_Maura]

There should be no negative reaction to questioning as all it is is seeking truth. That is kinda crazy to me, to get offended just because someone is curious about motivation. Only if our motivation is not truly honest or something we are not proud of would someone get offended.

This thread is not about comparing the reception of communion or bashing how we receive it at all. It is about motivation and the reflection of our belief in our actions.

There would probably be no negative reaction if you didn’t keep bringing this up and rationalizing why one or more people have to answer it - not only answer it but answer it to your satisfaction before you are willing to stop asking.

 

[scylla]

Thank you Palmas, japhy, wow, etc for answering honestly and contributing positively to this thread.

If anyone else would like to contribute about the motivations to their actions in receiving, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Scylla

 

[Usagi]

Thank you Palmas, japhy, wow, etc for answering honestly and contributing positively to this thread.

If anyone else would like to contribute about the motivations to their actions in receiving, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Scylla

I receive in the hand because that’s the way I learned to do it, and I’m actually more afraid something will happen to the Host if I attempt to receive on the tongue (though I would like to try sometime).

Like an earlier poster, I go to a parish where the Hosts are extremely non-crumbly, such that I never see visible particles left on my hand after receiving. However, the Hosts are also rather large (compared to what I understand was the typical size in the days when reception on the tongue was universal) and I fear there would be a greater chance of a dropped or “bounced” Host were I to attempt to receive on the tongue.

So there is a reverence component in why I have not attempted reception on the tongue. On the other hand, I also agree with several posters who say that reception on the tongue is not intrinsically more reverent. I get the “fed like a small child” symbolism, which is really neat, but like others I don’t see why letting Jesus touch my tongue is any more respectful to Him than letting Him touch my hands and my tongue.

Obviously, anyone who supports communion in the hand for reasons of rebellion or arrogance is heading down the wrong path. On the other hand, looking down on those who choose to receive in the hand out of similar arrogance (and I’m not trying to say that you’re doing that, scylla) would be just as bad. St. Paul says that Christians should not judge each other in matters where freedom to choose different options exists.

Usagi

 

[palmas85]

It seems to be a pretty outrageous comment to make (CITH is inferior to COTT) without some proper documentation.

While the Church has made errors in certain areas it does not make sense that it is not protected against instituting practices deliberately lacking in proper reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

I never made the statement that either method is superior or inferior or equal for that matter, so your statement is puzzling at best.

Errors in the application of a sacrament or ritual aren’t quite the same as errors in doctrine, dogma etc. I believe that if you check history closely you will see that the Church has made lots of errors in the application of many things and subsequently corrected them.

In the case at hand for instance. The Church allowed communion in the hand for certain specific reasons and due to the irreverence that grew out of it, stopped the practice. The Eucharist taken home and displayed, sold as an amulet or charm, used to ward off sickness, etc. Those are established historical facts that cannot be denied, Now the Church has allowed on a LIMITED basis the reception in the hand once again and once again irreverence is growing and spreading. Remember the Eucharist being sold on E-Bay? And while I don’t know anyone personally who does it, from the posts on this very forum asking how to properly display the Eucharist at home, I know people are doing that as well…

Or lets take receiving under both species, another splendid example. Widely practiced for years, many grew to believe that the sacrament was incomplete if you did not receive under both species. Clearly not the case, but many, including Bishops, Priests other religious and more than a few of the laity believed it. It also spawned abuses. It also led to a diminishing of respect of the sacrament. So it was stopped. Now again on a limited basis it is allowed again, although if you read the conditions under which it is to be allowed, you might be surprised.

Maybe the Bishops who pushed for these changes thought that modern man was somehow better able to understand and appreciate what was going on in these situations then were people in earlier times. Some do, without question… Many others don’t, also without question.

Or it could be that many of the Bishops who pushed for these changes were of a liberalist, in the theological sense, mindset, and wanted to make Christ more approachable in a true Christology from below manner. Who knows why they did it?

As I said, I’ve never seen a good solid rationale for either one of practices to be re-instituted… But I will say this. If the supporters of these practices don’t do something to properly catechize their associates who act as though they are at a Picnic or a Burger King or worse, the Church WILL stop the practices again.

Of that fact, I am positive.

 

[CradleCath]

I am sorry if you think it is harassment, it just seems to me that instead of answering, you have changed the subject. I left an example response that explains why there is a Catholic reason for receiving on the tongue. This reflects our belief in the real presence and its observance over time. A response that asks a question is not an Catholic answer that reflects our belief.
Peter 3:15

I will refrain from asking if you state there is no Catholic answer or if you give one. I enjoy the participation in this forum but it is not my intention to give offense or to harass, I am just seeking a Catholic answer.

I will respond to other posts that are off the subject later, but I would much rather stick to the topic of the thread.

God Bless
Scylla

You’ve asked a simple question that has never been answered by Eilish Maura & I doubt it will be. Her posts appear on many traditional threads, though her philosophy doesn’t seem to agree with traditional Catholicism. Some, on other threads, have suggested that her signature box leads them to believe that she might be a child & a girl scout. If not, t appears that she is here either to disrupt an argue.

I have asked your question “what is the motivation behind Communion in the hand”, myself. The answers given have been:

1. Receiving on the tongue is an example of the “clericalism” that existed before Vat. II.
2. Receiving in the hand is conducive to more ACTIVE PARTICIPATION by the laity.
3. God made us in His image & would be displeased to see us as “overly pious”. Kneeling for Communion, not touching the host ourselves is demeaning to the laity.

None of these answers have been satisfactory IMO. I’m anxious to see if you get some better ones.

 

[CradleCath]

The Church granted the indult.

Bishops (who are also part of the Church last time I looked) allowed it before and/or after the indult.

The Church did re-institute the practice.

It does not have to be universally re-instituted just like the MP does not force every parish all over the world to offer the TLM.

The issue of ‘equal’/‘inferior’ is not appropriate because it infers that the Church would DELIBERATELY approve the use of something that in itself demeans the Real Presence.

Do YOU approve of Communion in the Hand? If so, please tell us why.

 

[pnewton]

While I refuse to speculate on motivations of others, especially the Church, I can give my own motivation for my preference. I prefer receiving in the hand because:

1. I can keep my head bowed and my eyes down, which I find more reverent.
2. That is the way I was raised, as I was raised Baptist
3. I find the argument about unconsecrated hands confusing, since our tongue, mouth, esophegus and stomach are also unconsecrate.

Still, if the practice is ever reprobated, the only down side I see is some of you will have one less axe to grind. So I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

BTW - I do receive on the tongue when my hands are full with a child and receive under one species for the same reason.

 

[Jettson]

…At my Church I assist the Priest and I pour the Precious Blood as he breaks the Eucharist. This is wrong and yet if someone asks why I do it I will telll them. I do it out of obedience to my Bishop who commands us to do this and the person above me too. I know it is wrong but I do it out of obedience asking God’s forgiveness each time as I wait until I do not have to do this. The Bishop knows it is wrong too as it is clear from the document he sent to the parishes but he is seeking permission so the practice is to continue until he possibly gets permission…

I think that’s extremely poor form. You know it’s wrong. You lament to others here and in person that it is wrong, yet you still facilitate what is a true liturgical abuse.

Yes I am sure there are a plethora of available excuses – I am called to this ministry and this is part of it; My bishop demands it so it’s not really an abuse; I was asked by my pastor; no one else would do it; if I didn’t do it someone with less skill would, etc. etc. but it doesn’t make it any less abusive.

This forum is remarkable. On the one hand people proudly proclaim they will never receive Holy Communion from an EMHC or even in some cases, from a deacon. That act will do absolutely nothing to help the shortage of priests. Nothing.

Yet if some of the very same people tactfully yet resolutely refused to pour the Precious Blood (even if that meant not being an EMHC, altar server, etc.) it might well make the right impression on the celebrant and ultimately his bishop.

Even as a deacon I would (in private away from the Mass) very humbly communicate to the celebrant that I could not be a part of pouring the Precious Blood in defiance of the Church. If it was done with enough humility and with God’s Grace that too could make a positive impression not only on the celebrant but on his bishop should he be informed of the situation.

Extremely tactful and prayerful communication away from the Mass would be the key, along with the courage to quietly step back from the liturgical ministry should that become necessary.

 

[japhy]

I have asked your question “what is the motivation behind Communion in the hand”, myself. The answers given have been:

1. Receiving on the tongue is an example of the “clericalism” that existed before Vat. II.
2. Receiving in the hand is conducive to more ACTIVE PARTICIPATION by the laity.
3. God made us in His image & would be displeased to see us as “overly pious”. Kneeling for Communion, not touching the host ourselves is demeaning to the laity.

For #1: Self-communicating was only the privilege of the celebrant, not the clergy in general; non-celebrating priests had to receive on the tongue as well!

For #2: Vatican II said nothing of the sort. In fact, here is what Vatican II – in Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14 – did say about the “active participation” of the faithful:
Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.

The aim of restoring and promoting the sacred liturgy is to bring about the “full and active participation”. How does the Church propose to do this? By having “pastors of souls … zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work”. By having the pastors of souls instruct the faithful! Catechesis!

And as for #3, Memoriale Domini disagrees:
This method of distributing holy communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.

So that’s my take on the answers you’ve received; I too find them lacking.

 

[Jettson]

For #1: Self-communicating was only the privilege of the celebrant, not the clergy in general; non-celebrating priests had to receive on the tongue as well!

Receiving in hand where allowed by the Church is not “self-communication.”

 

[japhy]

Receiving in hand where allowed by the Church is not “self-communication.”

Ok, point taken. Regardless, the only one who received into (and then from) his own hand was the celebrant.

And I have seen churches that let the EMHCs communicate in the style of the celebrant; they don’t take their own host, but they are given a host and hold it in their hands until the priest says the Domine, non sum dignus (of course, not in Latin…).

 

[Sarabande]

Up until last year, I almost always received in the hand, unless I attended a TLM. It wasn’t until I started to receive on my tongue when I felt a “calling” towards only receiving in that way. I know that probably sounds, strange, but it’s the best way that I can explain my “motivation” of receiving on the tongue.

Prior to that I had always received in the hands mainly because when we were preparing for our First Holy Communion, our teachers told us that we could receive either way, but it was preferable if we received using our hands. So, I just never did it the other way until I attended a TLM and later felt a pull towards only receiving with my tongue. That’s not to say I have anything against receiving in the hands still. If I have a cough and could potentially cough while the priest distributes communion, I would most likely use my hands.

— Side note — My mother-in-law had spent a week with us this week and we were discussing this thread. She was a pre-teen/teenager during Vatican II and said during that time, her sisters and she were taught that they were no longer allowed to receive communion on the tongue and “must” receive in the hands. It actually wasn’t until she was an adult that she found out receiving on the tongue was permitted, but she had become so accustomed to using her hands by that point. Now that we were discussing this, she has been thinking a little bit more about why she is doing it.

 

[Margarite]

It’s not up to me to judge anyone but it sounds like pride to me. You’re right – it would be great if there was such an abundance of priests that both deacons and EMsHC had nothing to do. But refusing to receive holy communion from deacons and EMsHC won’t help to achieve that state.

Pride sounds like it’s rearing its ugly head again when you talk about “unconsecrated hands.” If the Church has no prohibition against it, why do you?

Also just where is your 30K family parish? That’s terribly unhealthy. We have about 3.5K families with 5 full-time priests and 7 Masses every Sunday and it’s a terribly unhealthy atmosphere. 30K families? That’s bordering on the ridiculous.

At an average size of 3 people/family that’s 90K members. You said what, 8 Masses/Sunday? What does that work out to? 11,250 attendees per Mass? Hmm… :dts:

This is a quote from the Las Vegas Diocese website.

The Diocese of Las Vegas consists of 39,688 square miles located within the southern portion of the state of Nevada. Within its boundaries, 30 parish communities exist within small rural towns and the large, brightly-lighted metropolitan area of Las Vegas. Not only is the Diocese one of the fastest growing areas, but is also home to one of the largest tourist destinations within the United States. The basic facts of Las Vegas are striking: city population is now over one million people; the tourist industry brings in some 35 million people a year and the people moving to the Las Vegas area number around 5,000 a month. We estimate that one third of our population is Catholic, or about 600,000 people. The Diocese consists of 25 parishes, 2 Shrines, and 7 missions. There are 31 incardinated active diocesan priests who receive assistance from 21 other extern diocesan priests and Religious. With these statistics, you can easily see that the need for parishes and priests in the Diocese of Las Vegas has never been greater. The need to build more parishes is crucial. Yet, in order to accomplish all of this, our Diocese lacks the priests to shepherd these growing faith communities.

Sorry, you are right. I was sure that I had read 30000 families, but it was 30,000 people or 10,000 families. Anyways, that is still a big number and we still have the army of EMotE.

I never said that I did not go to the EMotE, because I do almost every Sunday. My family tries to sit where the priests is, but he is constantly moving around and finding a pew with enough seats left for 8 people is not easy.

I do not think that I am proud to dislike going to the EMotE, I just don’t like going to them, I do not refuse to go to them. It is a fact that these EMotE do not have consecrated hands. There is no denying it. No one except the priest has consecrated hands, so it would be best if no one except the priest touched Our Lord. The priesthood has specifically been set apart to touch the sacred host (as well as other things) just as marriage has been set apart to produce children. Priests do not (or at least should not) have children, and lay people should not touch Our Lord.

I understand that EMotE are necessary because of the lack of priests, but I believe that every church should do all in their power to avoid having EMotE. Such as having all the parish priests help to distribute Holy Communion. Also I belive that having only altar boys would help to cause more young men to be interested in the priesthood.
I actually heard a man the other day say that the reason he even thought about the priesthood was the fact that he had been an altar boy before Vatican II allowed girls up near the altar.
Altar boys are usually between 7 and maybe 13 years old, that is when boys are of the opinion that anything girls do is girly. This means that boys associate being an altar server with being a little bit girly (I mean they wear a dress ) Why would any boy be drawn to be an altar boy and even more, why would he want to be a priest. Maybe that is why there are so many late vocations, because so many men have to overcome this underlying notion and that takes years.

Now I know that some people may say this has nothing to do with Holy Communion in the hand, but it does. If we had more priests, then we could have smaller parishes and then we would not need EMotE and then we could get rid of Holy Communion in the hand.

PS: I am a girl of 18 and I am totally against women or girls being near the altar. I love being a girl, but I think that the altar is not the place for women. That is the tradition since even before Christ and suddenly it was changed. I love the Norvus Ordo mass, I just do not like the abuses and the liberalism that often accompanies it. I love the mass at EWTN.

 

[japhy]

Prior to that I had always received in the hands mainly because when we were preparing for our First Holy Communion, our teachers told us that we could receive either way, but it was preferable if we received using our hands. …

She was a pre-teen/teenager during Vatican II and said during that time, her sisters and she were taught that they were no longer allowed to receive communion on the tongue and “must” receive in the hands.

See, I think the aim of this thread is that scylla would like to know why people are taught such things (the first of which is entirely subjective and dubious, the second of which is entirely wrong).

First point: Receiving in the hand is preferable… to whom? The minister or the communicant or “the Church”? They couldn’t have meant the communicant, because how could they know the future communicant prefers to receive on the tongue or in the hand? If they meant the minister, what was that minister’s reason for preference, and why should that effect the communicant’s preferred mode of reception? And if they meant “the Church” (in quotes because the Church doesn’t prefer it), where’d they get such an idea?

Second point: Absolutely false. Where did they get such an idea? It smacks of disobedience, since the US didn’t receive the indult until the mid 1970’s.

 

[TMC]

I believe that communion in the hand is a more faithful response to Christ’s command that we “do this in rememberance of Me.” I also believe it better reflects Catholic theology because it better reflects what we do when we receive Christ, and how we are called to receive Christ in our daily lives.

There can be little doubt (although you sometimes hear it expressed) that the Apostles took the consecrated bread into their hands at the Last Supper. Obviously we are not Apostles, but remember what Christ said to do. “Take this and eat.” Christ calls for us to not only receive and accept His sacrifice, but to be active in our reception, to take it.

Communion in the hand follows this command more clearly, not just because the Apostles took with their hands, but because of the posture of the Faithful towards Christ. We hear a lot about the mental disposition of the Faithful and whether the hand can be as reverent as teh mouth. I think it can be. But I know that taking Christ into one’s hand is what He asked us to do, and it reflects the theological truth that each Christian is called to take Christ into his or her life. Christ is not jammed into your soul by the Church, Christ must be accepted and taken into our hearts. Receiving in the hand reflects this important part of our Faith, and that’s why I think it is preferable.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

See, I think the aim of this thread is that scylla would like to know why people are taught such things (the first of which is entirely subjective and dubious, the second of which is entirely wrong).

First point: Receiving in the hand is preferable… to whom? The minister or the communicant or “the Church”? They couldn’t have meant the communicant, because how could they know the future communicant prefers to receive on the tongue or in the hand? If they meant the minister, what was that minister’s reason for preference, and why should that effect the communicant’s preferred mode of reception? And if they meant “the Church” (in quotes because the Church doesn’t prefer it), where’d they get such an idea?

Second point: Absolutely false. Where did they get such an idea? It smacks of disobedience, since the US didn’t receive the indult until the mid 1970’s.

It has long stopped being something ‘disobedient’.

An indult was given - who do some people think they are to spit on it this way?

 

[pnewton]

It has long stopped being something ‘disobedient’.

An indult was given - who do some people think they are to spit on it this way?

You might want to read closer and complain less. The incident happened during Vatican II, before the indult and was told receiving on the tongue was not permitted any longer. In the context given, it sure as heck was disobedient.

And no one spit.