Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Correct.
- Status
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
your welcome. I see nothing out of date as it addressed the issue and the same concerns as are being raised today.Thank you
E
ElToro
Guest
He does at St. Pete’s.
N
Newbie2
Guest
True. Your point?
Sort of a moot point, eh? If the Church allows EMHCs and COTH, clearly she has no problem with “unconsecrated hands” touching the host, no?
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Ok, You get things completely correct EMCH do receive training and a blessing to commission them to there post. not just anyone sitting out in the congregation can go and fill in ans a EMCH at that MASS. So though not ordained they are consecrated for that positon that they held and it is to be renewed ever three years.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I think the OP was speaking of “consecrated hands” as referring to a priest only.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Thing is, I never denied CITH is allowed, or that EMHC’s are allowed. On previous threads I’ve stated such. You just don’t like my on topic answer to the OP’s question and want to argue.
Traditionally, only the priest touched the Blessed Sacrament. The Church has released documents authorizing CITH and EMHC’s. These documents are often quoted without the text explaining the guidelines. I suspect there is a reason for that. That is, in the majority of cases where these permissions are granted, the guidelines are not met. They are ignored.
So for me, it’s not so much the permissions, but the liberties taken with the guidelines, and the denial of such. The permissions are abused.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Wrong. Traditionally deacons touch the host as well.
L
LovingMass
Guest
Personally, I’m fine with taking communion in hand or on tongue, whichever the priest prefers; however, when taking in hand, I’m uneasy if I get a host with crumbly edges that leave particles in my palm. Not to worry: I face the altar and (discreetly I hope) put my hand to my mouth to take in the crumbs, but it still makes me nervous.
P
Phemie
Guest
I guess not, since deacons can distribute Communion and their hands are not consecrated.
N
Newbie2
Guest
So…and correct me if I’m mistaken here…but it seems that you think the Church is violating her own doctrine by allowing CITH and EMHCs. Do you really think the Church is that hypocritical and or those in charge have deliberately overlooked or flaunted Church doctrine?
Perhaps it’s because they are guidelines (disciplines), as you said and are as such subject to change, unlike doctrine, which is not subject to change?
A
anp1215
Guest
I think CIH is so popular (here) because the vast majority of parishioners receive that way. Most people just “go with the flow.” Also, it’s widely taught. When I was in RCIA, the instructor (a soon-to-be-deacon) did mention both CIH and COT, but added “I mean, we prefer you receive in the hand.” So yeah, I’m pretty sure everyone in that class ended up having their first Communion in the hand. And they will probably do it that way for the rest of their lives.
E
ElToro
Guest
“I think CIH is so popular (here) because the vast majority of parishioners receive that way.” :banghead:
WHY is it that way? Yes, once most people began receiving CIH I could see how that would influence others but WHY did it become so popular from the outset?
P
Phemie
Guest
Could it possibly be because people really didn’t like COTT but did it because that’s what the rule said they had to do? That would explain why they embraced CIH once it was allowed.
A
anp1215
Guest
I can only speculate on what I have seen firsthand. I’m 21…the advent of CIH came well before I was even alive. I would venture that, as another poster pointed out, it is popular because of the ease and simplicity it offers.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I think its just the issue that many people feel uncomfortable about another person having their hands close to or even touching their mouth. We’re at a point in our society where we’re so conscious about health that things like this make us uncomfortable.
A
anp1215
Guest
Yes, I would agree.
E
ElToro
Guest
I think that is a big part. I also think some people are ashamed at the condition of their mouths – bad teeth, coated tongue, etc.
E
ElToro
Guest
Summary
CIH:
Advantages: Better hygiene, more ancient method of receiving; more modest for those uncomfortable about the condition of their mouths; less anxiety for those who don’t want to have others’ hands near their mouths; less anxiety for those who do not want to stick out their tongues; more efficient; safety – less possibility of a dropped Host;
Disadvantages: None known
COT:
Advantages: “Hands-free” communion for those with children or walkers/canes/crutches.
Disadvantages: Having mouth touched; having fingers bitten, more potential for dropped hosts, greater chance of spreading germs/disease.
CIH:
Advantages: Better hygiene, more ancient method of receiving; more modest for those uncomfortable about the condition of their mouths; less anxiety for those who don’t want to have others’ hands near their mouths; less anxiety for those who do not want to stick out their tongues; more efficient; safety – less possibility of a dropped Host;
Disadvantages: None known
COT:
Advantages: “Hands-free” communion for those with children or walkers/canes/crutches.
Disadvantages: Having mouth touched; having fingers bitten, more potential for dropped hosts, greater chance of spreading germs/disease.
A
anp1215
Guest
I would argue that one disadvantage of COH is the greater possibility of “Eucharistic abuse” (not sure if that’s a real term). For example, there is a greater chance of someone walking off with the host in their hands, than say, someone spitting out the host when they got back to their seat. Yes, I know that both instances happen, but I think that receiving COH makes for greater difficulty in monitoring what exactly people are doing with the host.
- Status