Why Communion in the Hand?

[truevaticanii]

I see no question in this post. Questions end with a question mark “?” and there is none in this post.

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.

Um… this sounds like “it’s my body! my choice!” …just sayin.

And you did reply to my statement in a manner that answered or implied question… how do you protect the particles from the host that fall when you receive on the hand? …is the host more safe from people like satanists when receive on the tongue or on the hand?

I said: "By harm–I mean that each particle of the Host IS Jesus Christ, meaning that every single tiny piece that could possibly come off the host unknowingly when you take the Host off your left hand with your right… you often do not lick your hand to receive each particle… you often put your hand down or something, so these little unseen particles (JESUS CHRIST) fall to the ground–no one would want that. In order to prevent this… traditional Catholic Masses have altar servers who guide the Host from the “bowl” to the mouth and are held under the chin of each Communicant as they receive on the tongue so that any particle that may fall off the tongue will fall to the paton and will later be wiped off the paton and–I think–wiped into the chalice to be consumed by the priest. So, each particle, being Jesus Christ, if fallen, will fall on the tongue, and if not there, then on the paton, and–in some churches–if not on the paton, then on the altar rail cloth.

“I want to protect the Eucharist… each particle that is split from the Host is Jesus Christ, and little particles sometimes fall off the Host when the Host is in the hand, then the person picks up the host with their opposite hand and places Jesus in their mouth. Then, they usually move the hand that first received Jesusin away that anything that was on the hand falls off the hand… inculding htose tiny particles. I do not want that to occur. Also, if we see someone receive on the tongue and not with the hand, then it is harder for them to steal the host as a satanist who wants to perform a black mass… they cannot slip the host into their sleeve from the palm of their hand because the altar server would notice if they tried to take the Host by the hand… and when we receive on the tongue, you can tell if someone takes the host out of their mouth during Mass… to preserve it for desecration. and, if they wait until after Mass, then at least some of the pieces of the Host will have had to be consumed and perhaps it would be less likely for them to get each piece of the host off their tongue or whatever.” —one of my earlier posts."

Jesus has fallen so many times, and the falling did not stop after he made it to the top of Calvary… he has fallen more than once everyday this week at daily Masses.

“Jesus falls for the billionth time.”

 

[damooster]

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?

Me, personally? Remember, this is just my opinion: if the Church ended CITH tomorrow, I would respect their decision and not pray for it to bring CITH back. My reasoning is that I respect the decision of the Church as being in my best interest, and it would seem arrogant of me to pray against the Church. And I’m not just saying this to prove a point; this is how I would really react. I’m trusting that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church.

 

[truevaticanii]

Good question.

Not so simple an answer however

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. 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.

Interesting to point out that early Christians had received on the hands (and in some places only on the right hand, the left hand could not touch the host)…

And this process was possibly began because of Christian persecution… if the priest was storing a huge supply of bread in the catacombs, and the Romans had found this there would have been more danger… but since the people brought their own bread and appeared to be eating lunch, supper, etc. as a Community, there is not as much speciousness in that. Also, the Apostles were all priests who have to touch the host at some point… according to the theory that says “the Apostles touched it, so we all should…” is like saying “Judas received Communion after preparing to turn Christ over, so excommunicated peoples and pro-choice Catholic politicians should also be able to receive Communion.” And, perhaps those early Christians practiced the Mass in that way because it was all they knew of at the time… that’s how the priests received, so they received that way as well because no one had ever considered particles falling from the host and the symbolism of the action involved and whatnot… Had they thought of that and not had the Romans hunting them down… they probably would have done it differently… that’s why it may have taken a while for Communion on the tongue to develop. The consequences of receiving on the tongue was protecting the Eucharist from Satanists who try to commit sacrilege with the host, preventing the particles of the Host (each particle being Our Lord Jesus Christ) and the Host Itself from falling to the ground, and a deeply beautiful symbolism of the dependence on the priest and Jesus Christ at that!

 

[truevaticanii]

Me, personally? Remember, this is just my opinion: if the Church ended CITH tomorrow, I would respect their decision and not pray for it to bring CITH back. My reasoning is that I respect the decision of the Church as being in my best interest, and it would seem arrogant of me to pray against the Church. And I’m not just saying this to prove a point; this is how I would really react. I’m trusting that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church.

You wouldn’t ever pray for the Church… damooster, the Church isn’t infallible in every move she makes… each bishop and priest and layman, etc. is only human. I always pray for the Holy Father and the Church.

 

[damooster]

You wouldn’t ever pray for the Church… damooster, the Church isn’t infallible in every move she makes… each bishop and priest and layman, etc. is only human. I always pray for the Holy Father and the Church.

I pray for the Church every day. I would not pray against a decision the Church made regarding something like this. I understand that bishops and priest are men, but as a Catholic, I understand that the Holy Spirit is guarding the Church. Again, it’s a personal opinion of mine.

 

[truevaticanii]

I pray for the Church every day. I would not pray against a decision the Church made regarding something like this. I understand that bishops and priest are men, but as a Catholic, I understand that the Holy Spirit is guarding the Church. Again, it’s a personal opinion of mine.

The Church also sold indulgences… the Church also started the Spanish Inquistion… did the Holy Spirit prompt them to do that? no. were these infallible acts? no. Was the pope right to allow these things to happen? no (not to claim that he is guilty or that sin or anything).
The Church also allows Communion to be received on the hand…

I’m sure that you must find it quite odd how the bishops asked us to pray for them as they over see the new translations for the Mass… such translations that must be approved by the USCCB and then the Holy See… they asked us to pray that God’s will be done.

 

[damooster]

The Church also sold indulgences… the Church also started the Spanish Inquistion… did the Holy Spirit prompt them to do that? no. were these infallible acts? no. Was the pope right to allow these things to happen? no (not to claim that he is guilty or that sin or anything).
The Church also allows Communion to be received on the hand…

I know the Church has made mistakes, but what are you saying? Am I supposed to question everything she does? Because mistakes were made in the past, I should be wary of everything she teaches from now on? Does this mean I can pick and choose what I want to believe?

Sounds pretty dangerous to me and it certainly doesn’t sound like a good way to live.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Um… this sounds like “it’s my body! my choice!” …just sayin.

And you did reply to my statement in a manner that answered or implied question… how do you protect the particles from the host that fall when you receive on the hand? …is the host more safe from people like satanists when receive on the tongue or on the hand?

I will answer these two questions.

I protect the particles, if there are any by consuming from my hand and then looking for particles in my palm, if they are there I consume them.

How does one protect the particles when it is placed on the tongue? They may fall off there also.

As for satanists, if that is a real issue, I have seen some who claim to be such state that they chose to receive by the tongue as they perceive a less vigilance being given to those people who receive in this manner then they just walk away and spit it out later when they are unobserved.

Anyways, again, where CITH is allowed, it is allowed by the Church so you really have no right to question the practice.

I will leave it at that.

 

[Chris_Jackson_1]

The answer to your question as to why the Church permitted Communion in the Hand in the 60’s is best answered here:


http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion6.htm

Disclaimer: I do not endorse all of the material on the above website, but the particular article I linked to, I think, is fair and accurate.

Here is the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI allowing Communion in the Hand as an indult.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6MYSTER.HTM

I also found the following article by Fr. McDonald to be a very interesting and informative history of communion on the hand.


http://saintrobertbellarmine.blogspot.com/2008/04/receiving-holy-communion-in-hand-debate.html

And finally another good one…

uvcarmel.org/2009/05/19/communion-in-the-hand-the-tradition-speaks/

God bless,

Chris

 

[humble_sinner]

The answer to your question as to why the Church permitted Communion in the Hand in the 60’s is best answered here:


http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion6.htm

Disclaimer: I do not endorse all of the material on the above website, but the particular article I linked to, I think, is fair and accurate.

Here is the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI allowing Communion in the Hand as an indult.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6MYSTER.HTM

I also found the following article by Fr. McDonald to be a very interesting and informative history of communion on the hand.


http://saintrobertbellarmine.blogspot.com/2008/04/receiving-holy-communion-in-hand-debate.html

And finally another good one…

uvcarmel.org/2009/05/19/communion-in-the-hand-the-tradition-speaks/

God bless,

Chris

Thank you Chris, for posting those links. The evidence for receiving on the tongue is overwhelming imho. I don’t believe I’ll ever be able to touch the Blessed Sacrament again.

 

[truevaticanii]

I know the Church has made mistakes, but what are you saying? Am I supposed to question everything she does? Because mistakes were made in the past, I should be wary of everything she teaches from now on? Does this mean I can pick and choose what I want to believe?

Sounds pretty dangerous to me and it certainly doesn’t sound like a good way to live.

Every mistake that the Church has made went against what the Church teaches, and it was not every single Catholic who was responsible for the actions… it was usually just a few priests, bishops, or a pope… though, most popes have been great, there were very few “bad” popes… and even fewer “bad” popes who spoke infallibly (they couldn’t preach the errors that they may have wanted to state because the Holy Ghost wouldn’t let them).

No, we are not cafeteria, modernistic “Catholics” here… we may question some traditions of man and bring them to the attention of our bishops, while trusting that they will do what is best without denying any doctrine… any doctrines that came from a council or Pope (ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals) must be believed by the faithful… but we do not have to believe that Communion on the tongue is equally protecting the Host just as we do not have to believe that the selling of indulgences was a good thing (which no Catholic should believe).

 

[truevaticanii]

I will answer these two questions.

I protect the particles, if there are any by consuming from my hand and then looking for particles in my palm, if they are there I consume them.

what about those very TINY particles, which the eye cannot see? The ones that are on your hand when you do not notice, or what if, for some reason your eye skipped over on particle? What if you were blind and could not see your hand in the first place? Besides, most of these particles are to small to grasp with your hand, you would have to lick them from your hand and receive on your tongue via your hand. Also, you would have to keep your left hand and right fingers turned up will you inspect your hands to be sure that there are no tiny particles that may have stuck to the hand that could fall off if you turn your hand over.

How does one protect the particles when it is placed on the tongue? They may fall off there also.

This is less likely, the tongue is moist, so the particles stick to it more. And, when receiving on the tongue, the “good” parishes will hold patons under your tongue to catch any particles that somehow miss the tongue. But, in most cases the priest picks up the host, while the paton stays below it and then when the host is over to the tongue, the paton is beneath the chin to catch the astray particles. I have never seen any particles miss either the paton or tongue, but I have seen particles fall after being received on the hand.

As for satanists, if that is a real issue, I have seen some who claim to be such state that they chose to receive by the tongue as they perceive a less vigilance being given to those people who receive in this manner then they just walk away and spit it out later when they are unobserved.

Believe me, there are many youtube videos documenting atheists doing this, and there have been cases where the police get involved because of people like Satanists trying to steal hosts… and the good thing about them receiving on the tongue is that they will likely accidentally swallow some of the Host because of the Host coming apart in the mouth… they will have less particles to desecrate… though it would be best for them to have none of the particles, for even harming one tiny particle is so sacrilegiously scandalous and wrong.

Anyways, again, where CITH is allowed, it is allowed by the Church so you really have no right to question the practice.

**I have a right and an obligation to speak out when I see something perceived as scandalous at Mass (such as particles of Hosts not being carefully being received)… so I have an obligation to bring the concern to my bishop. Canon law can testify to this… if my priest was permitting people to dance on the altar during the consecration–I am obligated to contact my bishop, and if nothing stops the priest, I’ll write the apostolic nuncio! **

I will leave it at that.

my responses to you are in BOLD to Br. David, O.Carm. a.k.a, ByzCath.

 

[Chris_Jackson_1]

Whoops! Wrong link to the Pope Paul VI document granting the indult for Communion in the Hand. Here is the correct one…

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Um… this sounds like “it’s my body! my choice!” …just sayin.

May I ask what abortion has to do with this topic?

The law making abortion legal is a civil law and has nothing to do with the Church.

Comparing something that the Church allows with getting an abortion is wrong and misleading.

IMHO you have just disqualified yourself from the discussion. I think this usage by you is much like Godwin’s Law.

 

[truevaticanii]

May I ask what abortion has to do with this topic?

The law making abortion legal is a civil law and has nothing to do with the Church.

Comparing something that the Church allows with getting an abortion is wrong and misleading.

IMHO you have just disqualified yourself from the discussion. I think this usage by you is much like Godwin’s Law.

Saying that it’s my body receiving Jesus, so I can receive how I want sounds like "it’s my body, my choice!

 

[truevaticanii]

May I ask what abortion has to do with this topic?

The law making abortion legal is a civil law and has nothing to do with the Church.

Comparing something that the Church allows with getting an abortion is wrong and misleading.

IMHO you have just disqualified yourself from the discussion. I think this usage by you is much like Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s law is worthless… how could one descirbe God without a comparissons, analogies, etc.?

…you would not be able to convert athiests if you could not tear don’t their false ideas of what they think God is by describing God in the only way possible… by using analogies and such… (e.g., Shepherd, Light, etc.).

 

[Joannm]

Saying that it’s my body receiving Jesus, so I can receive how I want sounds like "it’s my body, my choice!

That is a real stretch to come to that conclusion. The Church allows the choice to receive either way. To compare it to the choice to abort a child really shows how you are grabbing at straws to convince people that receiving in the hand is wrong. The Church ALLOWS it, end of discussion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Saying that it’s my body receiving Jesus, so I can receive how I want sounds like "it’s my body, my choice!

Never said that it is my body receiving Jesus.

This comparison of receiving Communion in the Hand, something the Church allows for and is a discipline, with abortion, which the Church does not allow and is an immoral act, is plain ignorance and stupidity.

You have lost all credibility and I can see there is no use in discussing this with you any longer if you can not tell the difference.

 

[almightyservant]

damooster:

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 think I **have not discouraged anyone **from receiving on the hand. I have only asked a question to seek some understanding as to why receive on the hand. Is it possible that you can answer that question for me? I know it’s a tiresome subject, but please be patient with me.

 

[almightyservant]

**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.

Maybe my opinion is just my opinion, but please bear with me. I really am wanting to know what is going on here.

Let me try to use an example of something else. The Church allows us to do the minimum of receiving the Eucharist only a certain amount of times in the year and confession in the year (I think I read this somewhere or maybe I just completely fabricated it in my head. I think I’m completely crazy sometimes.). I can’t remember the numbers off the top of my head. So isn’t that an example of something that is allowed? So people can choose to only receive Communion and sacrament of penance a few times a year. Does that make it right?

By the way, thanks for letting me know a little about about “your business”.