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

[stmaria]

=TMC;3295535]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.

But there is doubt.

The Last Supper
But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Eilish_Maura]

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.

Blame Jesus for shifting the view of women.

He really is the one at the root of moving away from that kind of tradition.

He took direction from a woman for his first miracle, he had no trouble dealing with women directly and teaching them the Good News, when he rose from the dead the first to see him was a woman and there were women at Pentecost.

 

[TOP]

But there is doubt.

The Last Supper
But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The Last Supper was not about hospitality - it was about the Passover with its own rules and protocols. I have never heard that anyone spoon feeds another at a Passover meal.

 

[Sarabande]

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).

I agree. I also think it is interesting as to why we do certain things. It really wasn’t until we read this thread that my mother-in-law and I really thought about the original reasons of why we received in the hand. I was eventually pulled to receive on the tongue, but I never thought about why I didn’t receive on the tongue in the first place.

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?

I really don’t know who or what our teachers were referring to when they said that is was “preferable”. As an 8-year-old, I assumed that it was the Catholic Church. I knew that it wasn’t “wrong” to receive on the tongue, as they did say it was ok, but it seemed as if that it was “better” if you received in the hands because of their wording. I’m a product of the 1980s Church and I can say many of my contemporaries - at least everyone I know who are Catholic and around my age - had similar experiences. ie - Pre-Vatican II = BAD; Post Vatican II = GOOD. They almost always did it in this way, “Yes, it used to be allowed or it is still permitted, but it is preferable if you do it this way now.” I always remember “preferable”. To a kid that means “better”. To a kid who wants to be holy or who wants to become a religious (like me at the time - I’m obviously married now - but for years I was referred to as the “Little Sister” or “Sister -----”) I wanted to partake in the “better” way.

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.

Yes, I totally agree. When my MIL thought about this, she was actually a bit perturbed about it as well. I believe she didn’t want to disobey the priests and nuns who taught this. She said that her father (who was extremely devout - God rest his soul - just passed away a week ago) still received on the tongue, even though the younger generation in their parish (her generation) all were made to receive in the hands. I don’t know why she didn’t know until she was a young adult that it was ok to receive in the tongue, especially since her father still received on the tongue. But it apparently was the case with her other 5 sisters too. They didn’t know either.

I’m wondering if whoever taught this to the children/teens of her parish figured that they couldn’t changed the attitudes of the older people like the parents and grandparents, so set forth to mold the minds of the next generation of Catholics, who then in turn set to mold my generation.

 

[Sarabande]

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.

Thank you, pnewton. And yes, it was definitely during Vatican II in the 1960s when she was a pre-teen/teenager. She was married and had three children by the time the indult was given in the mid 1970s.

 

[japhy]

It has long stopped being something ‘disobedient’. An indult was given - who do some people think they are to spit on it this way?

The indult was not given in the US until the mid-1970’s, thus, telling a person to receive (or that they had to receive) in the hand before the indult was given was disobedience.

 

[sphilomena]

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.
.

No, it isn’t “strange” that you feel a calling to receive on the tongue now. It has happened to many people I know, some of us older, some not. For some of us, it has been because of a more intense relationship with the Blessed Mother. After I renewed my consecration to her, a lot happened in my life spiritually, and it was the same for others I know.

Some of those responding have stated that either as children, or in RCIA they were taught to receive in the hand. That happened to my children when we didn’t realize that they should be given the option, and that receiving in the hand is the indult. That phenomenon explains, I believe, why this practice spread so rapidly and completely. My :twocents:

 

[japhy]

I’m a product of the 1980s Church and I can say many of my contemporaries - at least everyone I know who are Catholic and around my age - had similar experiences. ie - Pre-Vatican II = BAD; Post Vatican II = GOOD.

I was born in 1981. When it came time for my First [Holy] Communion, we were taught to receive in the hand. It was never an issue.

I’ve only been receiving on the tongue for… less than a year. I started on Holy Thursday of last year. Since then, one host fell from my tongue, and I felt absolutely dreadful about it. When I contrast that with the indifferent look I see from some people when they drop a host, I’m deeply saddened.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The indult was not given in the US until the mid-1970’s, thus, telling a person to receive (or that they had to receive) in the hand before the indult was given was disobedience.

Then it was.

It has been a long time since 1970 - that situation was resolved and that should be RESPECTED .

We are in a time when we are looking at schismatics and assorted Protestant parishes returning the the True Church - a far bigger issue than disobedience regarding mode of distribution of HC.

It would do no one any good to constantly harp on how this group used to be Protestant or that group was in schism - this harping on what was a disobedience (but no longer is) does even less.

 

[Sarabande]

Then it was.

It has been a long time since 1970 - that situation was resolved and that should be RESPECTED .

We are in a time when we are looking at schismatics and assorted Protestant parishes returning the the True Church - a far bigger issue than disobedience regarding mode of distribution of HC.

It would do no one any good to constantly harp on how this group used to be Protestant or that group was in schism - this harping on what was a disobedience (but no longer is) does even less.

I had brought up the fact that the “motivation” for my MIL for receiving in the hand in the first place was this act by the people who forced her and her sisters/classmates to do this in the 1960s long before the indult. No one was actually harping on it except to say that it was wrong of her church to do this especially since there was no indult until the 1970s. The response was misunderstood, so a few people wanted to clarify and show that there was a misunderstanding to the context of my original post and the response to that post. The only reason why more posts came up on this was because of the misunderstanding. So no harping, although it is a legitimate reason and motivation as to why some people do receiving either in the hand or on the tongue. (My MIL still receives in the hand, for instance because of it. Although, now since this thread, she is rethinking it.)

Now that this is hopefully rectified, back on topic.

 

[Sarabande]

I was born in 1981. When it came time for my First [Holy] Communion, we were taught to receive in the hand. It was never an issue.

I’ve only been receiving on the tongue for… less than a year. I started on Holy Thursday of last year. Since then, one host fell from my tongue, and I felt absolutely dreadful about it.

We’re of the same generation, just a couple years older. It has also been less than a year since I consistantly receive on the tongue as well. I’m still scared about it falling from my tongue, but the priests have been pretty good with placing it in there. But I know know how you feel.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I had brought up the fact that the “motivation” for my MIL for receiving in the hand in the first place was this act by the people who forced her and her sisters/classmates to do this in the 1960s long before the indult. No one was actually harping on it except to say that it was wrong of her church to do this especially since there was no indult until the 1970s. The response was misunderstood, so a few people wanted to clarify and show that there was a misunderstanding to the context of my original post and the response to that post. The only reason why more posts came up on this was because of the misunderstanding. So no harping, although it is a legitimate reason and motivation as to why some people do receiving either in the hand or on the tongue. (My MIL still receives in the hand, for instance because of it. Although, now since this thread, she is rethinking it.)

Now that this is hopefully rectified, back on topic.

If you look at the posts, here and on other threads, those who harp on this make out the practice is ‘tainted’ ignoring the possibility it is truly the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sarabande]

No, it isn’t “strange” that you feel a calling to receive on the tongue now. It has happened to many people I know, some of us older, some not.

Thank you, sphilomena.

 

[Sarabande]

If you look at the posts, here and on other threads, those who harp on this make out the practice is ‘tainted’ ignoring the possibility it is truly the work of the Holy Spirit.

That might be true, but in the context of my post and the post responding to it, that wasn’t the case. They were correcting a misunderstanding. I just don’t believe in making an assumption before really reading a person’s post, just because past posts tend to point to a certain train of thought. We all do it, but I think it’s best to try to read posts for within the context rather than assume based on past posts. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[sphilomena]

We’re of the same generation, just a couple years older. It has also been less than a year since I consistantly receive on the tongue as well. I’m still scared about it falling from my tongue, but the priests have been pretty good with placing it in there. But I know know how you feel.

It seems there is more danger of a host falling from a hand, because it will adhere to the tongue. (That’s been my observation of those ahead of me; I have seen hosts fall from hands, never the other.) The host falling out of my hand was the last straw before my return to receiving on the tongue, as I did all those years before. So be at peace!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It seems there is more danger of a host falling from a hand, because it will adhere to the tongue. (That’s been my observation of those ahead of me; I have seen hosts fall from hands, never the other.) The host falling out of my hand was the last straw before my return to receiving on the tongue, as I did all those years before. So be at peace!

But there have been instances where a buxom woman receiving on the tongue would find a that if the host did not adhere and fell from her tongue it lands on the breast or in the cleavage.

 

[japhy]

If you look at the posts, here and on other threads, those who harp on this make out the practice is ‘tainted’ ignoring the possibility it is truly the work of the Holy Spirit.

I certainly do doubt that the re-introduction of Communion in the hand is the work of the Holy Spirit. I will not deny that.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I certainly do doubt that the re-introduction of Communion in the hand is the work of the Holy Spirit. I will not deny that.

That is no reason to put down the indult that is in place.

 

[japhy]

But there have been instances where a buxom woman receiving on the tongue would find a that if the host did not adhere and fell from her tongue it lands on the breast or in the cleavage.

Well, better there than the floor! (I’ve seen a video from a wedding where that happened. I’ll admit I chuckled.)