Why receive in the hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chatter163
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not just receive Him on the tongue?

Why on earth would anyone even presume to dare take Him in the hand? Just because they can?

Reception on the tongue is the preferred, normative method. I’d be happy to share the numerous Church documents that say so if you’d like.
 
Okay, no documentation right now, but this is what I HEARD or am asking:

During Vatican II, how did taking the host in the hand come about? I HEARD it was not intended to happen, but some of our U.S. Bishops got a little spunky and okayed it before the induit. So which came first, in the hand, or the induit?
 
elts1956 said:
Okay, no documentation right now, but this is what I HEARD or am asking:

During Vatican II, how did taking the host in the hand come about? I HEARD it was not intended to happen, but some of our U.S. Bishops got a little spunky and okayed it before the induit. So which came first, in the hand, or the induit?
Click to expand...
The indult was granted as a result of the fact that people were disobeying and defying the Church. For whatever reason, the Holy See saw it better to allow the practice rather than to enforce a liturgical law that Rome saw as “unenforceable”.

It’s an example of rewarding disobedience. And it set quite a precedent for the future.
 
Lepanto said:
Why not just receive Him on the tongue?

Why on earth would anyone even presume to dare take Him in the hand? Just because they can?

Reception on the tongue is the preferred, normative method. I’d be happy to share the numerous Church documents that say so if you’d like.
Click to expand...
One is not “daring” to receive in the hand. It was good enough for Christ, the Apostles, and more than several generations of Catholics after that.
 
Lepanto said:
Why not just receive Him on the tongue?

Why on earth would anyone even presume to dare take Him in the hand? Just because they can?

Reception on the tongue is the preferred, normative method. I’d be happy to share the numerous Church documents that say so if you’d like.
Click to expand...
Oh and by the way, Father Rutler has subsequently said that he did not correctly quote Mother Theresa, as she did not say that.
 
otjm said:
One is not “daring” to receive in the hand. It was good enough for Christ, the Apostles, and more than several generations of Catholics after that.
Click to expand...
The apostles were bishops.

Please cite your source for your other claim.
 
otjm said:
Oh and by the way, Father Rutler has subsequently said that he did not correctly quote Mother Theresa, as she did not say that.
Click to expand...
Please cite your source for your Rutler correction claim.
 
Please discuss this issue here instead of in the “Does it matter which hand?” thread. Thank you, everyone.
 
Why do you believe it more reverent or special to receive on the tongue? How is it any different than in the hand?
 
I was so glad to see your rebuttal of the Mother Theresa claim, OTJM.
To me, it undermines her holy reputation. How could she have made such a strange statement, with all the other evils in the world. It makes her sound lacking in compassion, which I am sure she was not.
 
Lepanto said:
Why not just receive Him on the tongue?

Why on earth would anyone even presume to dare take Him in the hand? Just because they can?

Reception on the tongue is the preferred, normative method. I’d be happy to share the numerous Church documents that say so if you’d like.
Click to expand...
Why on Earth would anyone presume that receiving communion on one’s tongue is “better” than receiving in hand where both methods are allowed? Your hands are not worthy but your mouth is? C’mon that’s ridiculous. “Preferred?” Perhaps to you

Receiving while standing is also the “normative” way in the USA yet some people choose to kneel (while ignoring counsel outside of Mass on the reasons for following the normative convention.)

So people in the USA receive in hand as allowed (no, it’s not up to you to judge the indult) while others demand to kneel and ignore council.

Hypocritical.
 
**So people in the USA receive in hand as allowed (no, it’s not up to you to judge the indult) while others demand to kneel and ignore council.

Hypocritical.**

**There was nothing in the council of Vatican 2 that demanded receiving standing and in the hand in the Latin rite.

I weigh 300 lbs with weak, arthritic knees and chancy blood pressure. Kneeling is not the problem. Getting up and what might happen shortly thereafter are.

And while I normally receive on the tongue (and even did so as an Episcopalian) I can think of occasions when I might well receive in the hand.

Certain of the Eastern liturgies traditionally call for receiving in the hand.

And were I at a large outdoor celebration, it might be safer to receive in the hand, depending on circumstances. **
 
Lepanto said:
Why not just receive Him on the tongue?

Why on earth would anyone even presume to dare take Him in the hand? Just because they can?

Reception on the tongue is the preferred, normative method. I’d be happy to share the numerous Church documents that say so if you’d like.
Click to expand...
I would consider myself sacriligious if I *ever *received in the hand (or standing) again. I deeply regret the times that I, out of “convenience” or “for the sake of unity”, received in the hand and/or standing- or encouraged others to do so. Acolytes and Deacons may distribute communion if need be, and the Church has allowed lay people to be commissioned EMHC’s. I am strongly opposed to this practice, and hope that this practice will end someday. Only the priests and bishops should do this- only their hands have been consecrated. I believe that, ideally, a person should not touch the Sacred Host until they lift it at the Consecration at their first Mass.
 
m134e5 said:
I would consider myself sacrilegious if I ever received in the hand (or standing) again…
Click to expand...
Why?

Do you honestly believe you know better than the Catholic Church that allows communion in hand and directs standing as the normative posture for the OF Mass in the USA?

Further, what makes you think your mouth is somehow more worthy to receive the Blessed Sacrament than your hands? Are not both the work of God?

If you receive while kneeling at the OF of the Mass in the USA, do you heed counsel on the importance of standing to maintain unity of posture at that point in the Mass or do you just ignore your priest/bishop/the Catholic Church and instead rely on what sounds to be direct revelation from God?

When did we (and not God through His Church) become the arbiters of what is “better?” Seems like a lot of people on these forums bash others who make themselves the final arbiters of certain matters, yet the same people feel they can be the final arbiters of other mattes (direct revelation or not).
 
Moyle said:
Why?

Do you honestly believe you know better than the Catholic Church that allows communion in hand and directs standing as the normative posture for the OF Mass in the USA?

Further, what makes you think your mouth is somehow more worthy to receive the Blessed Sacrament than your hands? Are not both the work of God?

If you receive while kneeling at the OF of the Mass in the USA, do you heed counsel on the importance of standing to maintain unity of posture at that point in the Mass or do you just ignore your priest/bishop/the Catholic Church and instead rely on what appears to be direct revelation from God?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say I know better than the Church, but I do believe I know what is best for me- and it would be wrong of me to lessen my personal devotion and reverence towards the Eucharist for any reason. The Church has allowed many things over the years that people haven’t liked- sometimes they have turned out to be good things, and other times they have turned out to be bad things. Even after allowing communion in the hand, the Church has emphasized that reception on the tongue is the preferred method.
 
m134e5 said:
I wouldn’t say I know better than the Church, but I do believe I know what is best for me- and it would be wrong of me to lessen my personal devotion and reverence towards the Eucharist for any reason.
Click to expand...
OK, so it sounds like your ignore the Church’s direction/counsel to assume the normative posture of standing to receive communion during the OF Mass because you know what’s best for you?

Does that apply to everything? Can you do anything you want during any part of the Mass because you feel it’s the best for you? Does that apply to others as well? I am sure there is a multitude of people who feel the same way that you do about other parts of the Mass, that they need to deviate in order to do what’s best for them. Is it good when they too deviate?

And how do you know it’s best for you if it differs from what the Church directs? Direct revelation?
m134e5 said:
The Church has allowed many things over the years that people haven’t liked- sometimes they have turned out to be good things, and other times they have turned out to be bad things. Even after allowing communion in the hand, the Church has emphasized that reception on the tongue is the preferred method.
Click to expand...
Actually the Church does not emphasize communion in hand, at least in the USA. So just what exactly makes you the arbiter of what’s good or “better?”

What exactly makes you think you are free to ignore the Church?

This is a fascinating subject to me. There is a fairly large number out there that hammer-away at some for what they term “abuses” yet for some unexplained reason they feel they can deviate as they wish.

Why is that?
 
m134e5 said:
I wouldn’t say I know better than the Church, but I do believe I know what is best for me- and it would be wrong of me to lessen my personal devotion and reverence towards the Eucharist for any reason. The Church has allowed many things over the years that people haven’t liked- sometimes they have turned out to be good things, and other times they have turned out to be bad things. Even after allowing communion in the hand, the Church has emphasized that reception on the tongue is the preferred method.
Click to expand...
I understand your comment that it would be wrong to lessen your personal devotion and reverence towards the Eucharist.

I live in Canada, and when I received my First Communion, I was taught to receive on the hand. It is customary where I live to receive on the hand. My very well-formed parish priest instructs for reception on the hand. My Spiritual Director is a LC priest, and when asked if I need to consider receiving on the tongue, has stated that it is not necessary for me to change. Try as I might, I feel very unnatural receiving on the tongue. It is a huge distraction for me to try to change, and I am not sure I need to do so.

I cannot imagine having more reverence for our Lord than I already do in receiving His body!

imho
 
I can answer why I do. I prefer to receive with reverence and I have always preferred the reverence of having my head bowed to that of lifting up my head so I can extend my tongue. I never even lift my eyes toward the priest or the altar when receiving. I know this is just a preference of mine and I always received on the tongue when I had to carry a child because I could not respectful hold my hands properly to receive there.

As always, I will be obedient and open if the Church changes this discipline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top