Why Communion in the Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter almightyservant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

almightyservant

Guest
There’s plenty of threads on receiving Communion on the hand or kneeling and on the tongue, but I want a specific question to be answered. I understand that I may not get a good answer, but at least I can attempt this apparently grandiose mission. 😃 Also I want to have whatever priviliges that comes with being an OP. So here’s my thread and question with some comments.

Please stick with the specific question.

“Why communion in the hand other than that it’s allowed according to the GIRM?”

“Because the GIRM allows it”, is not a good enough answer in my opinion. Just because something may be allowed, that does not make it most fitting. (Please, no one make any comments like, “But that is only your opinion!”) Also, aren’t we supposed to live beyond the letter of the rules or laws?

Also in my opinion, one of the strongest reasons against COTH has been that it is unnecessary “handling” of the the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of our Lord. Something or Someone most sacred, most holy, and precious should not deserve any unnecessary handling. He is more precious than gold and diamonds. The less people handling, the better. I imagine how gold is handled in places like Ft. Knox, or how diamonds are handled and by whom from the excavation sites. I understand that the care taken to avoid any unnecessary contact in the scenarios I give are because they do not want any gold or diamond lost. The same is true with the Host. We ought not do anything unnecessary to lose any particle of the Host.
 
This will be my only post on this subject…as has been said, this is a dead dead horse.

Ny own reasons:
  1. Because I trust my own hands to get the body of Christ successfully into my mouth, and I don’t trust the Priest to do it successfully.
  2. Because it takes 2 distinct acts of will, versus only 1 to receive on the tongue. Like reciting the psalms (as in LOTH) takes 2 acts of the will (reading, then pronouncing) instead of just reading. Receiving on the tongue is merely a single, passive act.
  3. I’m pretty tall, and some of our priests are very short. I’m not sure they can see where they’re aiming.
 
I rec in the hand rarely, and for reason when I do.

This past Sunday it was because I began to feel a bit off, did not want to risk spreading any germs if I am sick. By Sunday PM I had a fever, so, guess it was good that I was careful.
 
One may receive Christ kneeling or standing, for either reception in the hand or on the tongue. The person receives Christ as he best wishes to honor Him and in accordance to Church law. If the Church should ban the reception on the tongue or in the hand, standing or kneeling, in favor of something more suitable, than every Christian must obey, else be guilty of the sin of disobedience.

I receive in the hand because I once received on the tongue, but Christ almost fell off my tongue, so now, for His sake, I receive only in the hand. Neither organ is more worthy of Him, so I don’t see why traditionalists must declare one organ more worthy than the other. In fact, their belief that tongue is better than hand is inconsiderate to those who have no tongues. This is why our merciful Mother permits reception of Holy Communion either by hand or tongue, or IV shot if the person cannot receive either in the hand or on the tongue.
 
<<Neither organ is more worthy of Him, so I don’t see why traditionalists must declare one organ more worthy than the other.>>

A point I was about to make.

<< This is why our merciful Mother permits reception of Holy Communion either by hand or tongue, or IV shot if the person cannot receive either in the hand or on the tongue.>>

What’s this about receiving by IV? That is definitely neither “eating” nor “drinking.” And how about the issue of abluting, if not destroying, the apparatus involved?

Can you give any documentation for this extraordinary method?
 
Cluny said:
<<Neither organ is more worthy of Him, so I don’t see why traditionalists must declare one organ more worthy than the other.>>

A point I was about to make.

<< This is why our merciful Mother permits reception of Holy Communion either by hand or tongue, or IV shot if the person cannot receive either in the hand or on the tongue.>>

What’s this about receiving by IV? That is definitely neither “eating” nor “drinking.” And how about the issue of abluting, if not destroying, the apparatus involved?

Can you give any documentation for this extraordinary method?
Click to expand...
I found it on EWTN’s Q&A, I don’t know of any Church documents about it.
 
almightyservant said:
There’s plenty of threads on receiving Communion on the hand or kneeling and on the tongue, but I want a specific question to be answered. I understand that I may not get a good answer, but at least I can attempt this apparently grandiose mission. 😃 Also I want to have whatever priviliges that comes with being an OP. So here’s my thread and question with some comments.

Please stick with the specific question.

“Why communion in the hand other than that it’s allowed according to the GIRM?”

“Because the GIRM allows it”, is not a good enough answer in my opinion. Just because something may be allowed, that does not make it most fitting. (Please, no one make any comments like, “But that is only your opinion!”) Also, aren’t we supposed to live beyond the letter of the rules or laws?

Also in my opinion, one of the strongest reasons against COTH has been that it is unnecessary “handling” of the the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of our Lord. Something or Someone most sacred, most holy, and precious should not deserve any unnecessary handling. He is more precious than gold and diamonds. The less people handling, the better. I imagine how gold is handled in places like Ft. Knox, or how diamonds are handled and by whom from the excavation sites. I understand that the care taken to avoid any unnecessary contact in the scenarios I give are because they do not want any gold or diamond lost. The same is true with the Host. We ought not do anything unnecessary to lose any particle of the Host.
Click to expand...
For the record, I receive Holy Communion on the tongue, but I defend people who choose to receive on the hand.

I think these questions are misplaced. Why not ask the bishops, who have the authority to stop this practice whenever they wish, this question? If people are so concerned with how others receive the Lord, why not go to the people that can stop what you are so against? Discouraging individuals to stop receiving on the hand is not going to solve the “problem.”
 
I find the act of receiving in the hand to be very meaningful, a sign of humility and the need for God to fill my emptiness. Also, I don’t have to be concerned if I’m sticking my tongue out far enough or if the host will fall. To me, sticking out my tongue always seemed disrespectful and a somewhat unpleasant action. I’m old enough that I received communion on the tongue for many years before we were permitted to receive in the hand. I feel that receiving in the hand is the more reverent action and I’m grateful that it’s now permitted.

Since the OP asked, this is my reason for receiving in the hand. It has nothing to do with wanting to be equal to the priest or not be humble.

If the church should again require us to receive only on the tongue, I will do so since it’s better to be obedient than to follow one’s own preference.
 
I love receiving in the hand - I feel as if Jesus is inviting me, as He invited Thomas, to confirm my faith by the sensory testimony of lovingly placing my hands on His sacred body. Such was perhaps an unnecessary handling in Thomas’ case too, nonetheless Jesus was quite insistent about him doing it it so can it really have been wrong?

Not to mention the lovely and oft-quoted idea, first said by St Cyril of Jerusalem so many centuries ago, of ‘making of our hands a throne’ on which Our Lord may be enthroned. An idea which has no place in Communion on the Tongue.

Of course there are many lovely aspects to receiving on the tongue, but I do find sticking the tongue out an uncomfortable and perhaps disrespectful gesture. I also find it a somewhat childish one, the one aspect of the normally very dignified Mass that feels to me to be somewhat lacking in dignity.
 
ncjohn said:
Not wanting to discourage your enthusiasm but the current thread already beats this subject to death.

http://bestsmileys.com/oneofakind/1.gif
Click to expand...
I think it’s a very fair question. I was following the Communion in the hand thread until it was closed, and someone asked for some sort of Church document or statement explaining why the indult allowing Communion in the hand was allowed in the first place.

Other than the indult document itself, where is the explanation of why it is allowed ? The indult only explains conditions.

I watched the video of the Bishop that explains why we should receive on the tongue while kneeling, and it is very convincing. Where would I find documentation explaining why all of the reasons the Bishop gives don’t matter now ?
 
almightyservant said:
There’s plenty of threads on receiving Communion on the hand or kneeling and on the tongue, but I want a specific question to be answered. I understand that I may not get a good answer, but at least I can attempt this apparently grandiose mission. 😃 Also I want to have whatever priviliges that comes with being an OP. So here’s my thread and question with some comments.

Please stick with the specific question.

“Why communion in the hand other than that it’s allowed according to the GIRM?”

“Because the GIRM allows it”, is not a good enough answer in my opinion. Just because something may be allowed, that does not make it most fitting. (Please, no one make any comments like, “But that is only your opinion!”) Also, aren’t we supposed to live beyond the letter of the rules or laws?
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your premise that because the Church allows it is not good enough. That is your opinion and it is fine for you but it is wrong for you to apply your opinion to others.

That the Church allows it is good enough.

Other than that, not that it is really any of your business, I chose to receive the way that I do though my out prayer and meditation on the subject.

Christ told us to take and eat, he did not say that we are to be fed. Also, when I receieve from the Chalice I take it and drink from it myself, no one holds the Chalice up to my mouth for me to drink from it.

Add the fact that there are Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, of which, as a religious brother, I function as one when needed, are touching the Eucharist with their hands.
 
At the Last Supper, how was it done? Did Jesus “feed” each disciple, or was the bread passed, broken and taken in the hand by each recipient?

To me that provides the answer, and connects me more deeply to the moment when Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

And, is the hand any less worthy than the tongue? No, Jesus said it is what is “inside” of us that matters, not what is on the outside.

I like that people may choose which way they prefer, and both are acceptable, as long as it is done with understanding and proper respect.
 
truevaticanii said:
Someone has yet to answer me on these two posts which I left up on the other thread, which is now randomly closed…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5755122&postcount=494

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5755138&postcount=495
Click to expand...
I look at the second link and marvel at the hypocrisy. There you are questioning how someone will react if/when the Church ends reception of Holy Communion in the hand, when you continuously question people about it now even though the Church allows it.

You can’t just agree with something/someone only when they agree with you. If you’re going to require people to respect the Church if CITH is taken away, you have to respect the fact that the Church currently allows it. You want people to answer your questions yet you fail to answer theirs. No one here is required to answer to you, and no one is required to justify anything other than “the Church allows it.”
 
chaunceygardner said:
At the Last Supper, how was it done? Did Jesus “feed” each disciple, or was the bread passed, broken and taken in the hand by each recipient?

To me that provides the answer, and connects me more deeply to the moment when Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

And, is the hand any less worthy than the tongue? No, Jesus said it is what is “inside” of us that matters, not what is on the outside.

I like that people may choose which way they prefer, and both are acceptable, as long as it is done with understanding and proper respect.
Click to expand...
Good question.👍

Not so simple an answer however:eek:

Lets talk a bit about this.

The Sedar meal was and is a highly stylized and ritualized affair, carried out in a certain fashion, with certain specific foods eaten in a certain prescribed fashion. In the time of Jesus and still in certain Jewish communities, the Presider would present the foods, say the blessings and distribute the food. In that time it was very common that the Presider would given each person at the meal a small portion of the prescribed foods before the rest of that food was consumed. He would place these small morsels directly into the mouth of those present. This was done to show humility and to demonstrate the utter dependence of man upon God for sustinence and for life itself. The rest of the meal would then be consumed in the prescribed fashion. It is highly possible, indeed, I would say probable that Jesus followed this path. Not saying that He did, but it is possible that He did. What I find more significant however is that Jesus prescribed new meaning for ONLY two of the ritual foods, bread and wine. He pointedly ignored the others. Why?

I think it was to show the severing of the old covenant and the institution of the new. In fact I believe that most serious theologians believe the same with varying degrees of interpretation of just how radical the severance was.

Getting back to the early Church and the Eucharist.👍 In the early days the Mass actually was a full meal as opposed to what we have now. In fact, the bread used in these Masses was supplied by the congregation. Each family or individual would bring a substantial loaf and the Deacon would collect them. They would be blessed and distributed back to the congregation. A small piece would be consumed and the rest taken home for consumption during the upcoming week or weeks until the next Mass. So receiving in the hand made complete sense and was done with a purpose.

As time went on the Church became more rigid in its rules and requirements and at some point started to supply the bread that was used. Possibly with an eye towards economy the bread became a small individual piece rather than a normal sized loaf as had previously been the case. As time wore on the people both laity and clergy began to fall into camps. One side began losing reverence. The other started to believe that consecrated Hosts could perform miracles and bring good luck to someone who carried one around or who kept one on display at home. The consecrated Host was also needed in satanic worship practices. These led to sacrilige in the gravest terms, and the Church in an effort to stop these practices went to receiving on the tongue. The reception of the Precious Blood by the laity was stopped mainly to stem a belief that you had to receive under both species in order to receive communion fully and to stop acts of desecration that were happening at Mass.

So, is receiving in the hand good or is it bad? I don’t know.:confused: I have never seen a real good reason put forth for re introducing the practice nor have I ever heard any reason, other than what appear to be pure personal preference ever put forth at all. In fact, most of the reasons that I have seen put forth have to do more with the dignity and nobility of man and his approaching Jesus in the Eucharist as an equal, as a friend and in some cases as a lover, all of which are totally at odds with the manner in which the apostles themselves approached Jesus.

As an aside if people want to receive in the hand that’s fine with me. It certainly isn’t any of my business. :dts:

It just is something that I could never do.

And I will ask again, as I have multiple times in the past, for someone, anyone, to present a good rational reason for the re-introduction of the practice in the first place.

It cannot be that hard.
 
I receive on the hand because having somebody put something on my toungue is just plain weird to me. That said, I could care less what someone else does when it comes to receiving the eucharist. My own life is enough for me to worry about.
 
truevaticanii said:
Someone has yet to answer me on these two posts which I left up on the other thread, which is now randomly closed…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5755122&postcount=494
Click to expand...
I see no question in this post. Questions end with a question mark “?” and there is none in this post.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5755138&postcount=495
Click to expand...
damooster said:
I look at the second link and marvel at the hypocrisy. There you are questioning how someone will react if/when the Church ends reception of Holy Communion in the hand, when you continuously question people about it now even though the Church allows it.

You can’t just agree with something/someone only when they agree with you. If you’re going to require people to respect the Church if CITH is taken away, you have to respect the fact that the Church currently allows it. You want people to answer your questions yet you fail to answer theirs. No one here is required to answer to you, and no one is required to justify anything other than “the Church allows it.”
Click to expand...
damooster answers this one very well.

Maybe no one answered as no one felt that the questions put forward deserved an answer.

The manner in which one receives the Eucharist is a matter of personal preference. No one way is better than another, its a matter of personal choice and spirituality. Where CITH is allowed, the Church allows it. No one has a right to disallow what the Church allows, the Church is the Authority in this matter not any individual. You have your personal preference but that has no bearing on me or anyone else. Get over it.
 
palmas85 said:
Lets talk a bit about this.

The Sedar meal was and is a highly stylized and ritualized affair, carried out in a certain fashion, with certain specific foods eaten in a certain prescribed fashion. In the time of Jesus and still in certain Jewish communities, the Presider would present the foods, say the blessings and distribute the food. In that time it was very common that the Presider would given each person at the meal a small portion of the prescribed foods before the rest of that food was consumed. He would place these small morsels directly into the mouth of those present. This was done to show humility and to demonstrate the utter dependence of man upon God for sustinence and for life itself. The rest of the meal would then be consumed in the prescribed fashion. It is highly possible, indeed, I would say probable that Jesus followed this path. Not saying that He did, but it is possible that He did. What I find more significant however is that Jesus prescribed new meaning for ONLY two of the ritual foods, bread and wine. He pointedly ignored the others. Why?

I think it was to show the severing of the old covenant and the institution of the new. In fact I believe that most serious theologians believe the same with varying degrees of interpretation of just how radical the severance was.

Getting back to the early Church and the Eucharist.👍 In the early days the Mass actually was a full meal as opposed to what we have now. In fact, the bread used in these Masses was supplied by the congregation. Each family or individual would bring a substantial loaf and the Deacon would collect them. They would be blessed and distributed back to the congregation. A small piece would be consumed and the rest taken home for consumption during the upcoming week or weeks until the next Mass. So receiving in the hand made complete sense and was done with a purpose.

As time went on the Church became more rigid in its rules and requirements and at some point started to supply the bread that was used. Possibly with an eye towards economy the bread became a small individual piece rather than a normal sized loaf as had previously been the case. As time wore on the people both laity and clergy began to fall into camps. One side began losing reverence. The other started to believe that consecrated Hosts could perform miracles and bring good luck to someone who carried one around or who kept one on display at home. The consecrated Host was also needed in satanic worship practices. These led to sacrilige in the gravest terms, and the Church in an effort to stop these practices went to receiving on the tongue. The reception of the Precious Blood by the laity was stopped mainly to stem a belief that you had to receive under both species in order to receive communion fully and to stop acts of desecration that were happening at Mass.

So, is receiving in the hand good or is it bad? I don’t know.:confused: I have never seen a real good reason put forth for re introducing the practice nor have I ever heard any reason, other than what appear to be pure personal preference ever put forth at all. In fact, most of the reasons that I have seen put forth have to do more with the dignity and nobility of man and his approaching Jesus in the Eucharist as an equal, as a friend and in some cases as a lover, all of which are totally at odds with the manner in which the apostles themselves approached Jesus.

…

And I will ask again, as I have multiple times in the past, for someone, anyone, to present a good rational reason for the re-introduction of the practice in the first place.

It cannot be that hard.
Click to expand...
Quoted for being interesting. [My emphasis, above]

I’ve heard on this forum that CITH was stopped to curtail a particular heresy, but I couldn’t find out what it was. Is that it? The ideas that a) the Host had magic powers so people were doing daft things with it b) to stop Satanic abuse and c) to increase reverence?
 
damooster said:
I look at the second link and marvel at the hypocrisy. There you are questioning how someone will react if/when the Church ends reception of Holy Communion in the hand, when you continuously question people about it now even though the Church allows it.

You can’t just agree with something/someone only when they agree with you. If you’re going to require people to respect the Church if CITH is taken away, you have to respect the fact that the Church currently allows it. You want people to answer your questions yet you fail to answer theirs. No one here is required to answer to you, and no one is required to justify anything other than “the Church allows it.”
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that I would require for someone to accept that the Church would take CITH away… what I was saying is that you want me to respect the action of receiving in the hand because the Church allows it, but what if the Church disallowed it? What then? Would you do what you are asking me… to respect that the Church has disallowed it or would you obey the Church while praying that they would bring CITH back?

…and no, no one has to answer me, but I was saying that no one had answered me… and I was questioning if this is because they have no good answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top