Communion in the hand

There was abuse before Communion in the hand was allowed and it was even more gross.

Half of a disolved host spit out into a missal, etc.


The Church allows receiving in the hand, and those who try to discourage people from doing so, act against the will of God.


Jesus said, "take and eat." Taking with our hand and eating.

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

There was abuse before Communion in the hand was allowed and it was even more gross.

Half of a disolved host spit out into a missal, etc.

Click to expand...

That would be very conspicuous if that happened. And are you saying that can't happen or is less likely when someone receives Holy Communion in the hand? I think an abuse would be harder to do and harder to hide when one receives Holy Communion on the tongue. I'm not saying that Catholics shouldn't receive Holy Communion in the hand. They can because the bishops have said that they can.

As I'm not Catholic, I'm confused on the term of, "Communion In The Hand." I know what a regular Communion is, but what does this mean? Also, what kind-of abuse is it linked to, and why?

LivingWordUnity said:

That would be very conspicuous if that happened. And are you saying that can't happen or is less likely when someone receives Holy Communion in the hand? I think an abuse would be harder to do and harder to hide when one receives Holy Communion on the tongue. I'm not saying that Catholics shouldn't receive Holy Communion in the hand. They can because the bishops have said that they can.

Click to expand...

What do you mean "IF THAT HAPPENED ?"


It in fact did.

People received on the tongue and later in their pew, coughed it into their hand.

People received on the tongue, walked out of the church and spit it onto the ground.

God is above all this however. I believe just as He made the Host become the Body and Blood of Jesus, when the host is about to be desecrated, it returns to merely bread.

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

There was abuse before Communion in the hand was allowed and it was even more gross.

Half of a disolved host spit out into a missal, etc.

Click to expand...

If the Lord is not recognized in the Eucharist, what's to prevent that from happening even when given in the hand. (The person grabs the Consecrated Host, pretends to put Him in his mouth--walks to his seat--spits out the Consecrated Host so that he can break off a piece for his child or for other puposes. The abuse is there whether there is Communion on the Tongue or in the Hand.

Jesus said, "take and eat." Taking with our hand and eating.

Click to expand...

If we are going there. Why not also point out that Matthew 26:23 ("He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish shall betray me"?

As a former extraordinary minister, I have to admit that putting Jesus onto a dirty hand covered in marks and what looked like old telephone numbers didn't seem all that right. Although what was worse yet was the grab and pop into mouth as the person hurried by the extraordinary ministers to get out the door before the Mass was even over.

Again, it's the abuse that matters and I'm afraid that Communion-in-the-hand often leads to abuse and not reverence.

BTW only SOME places ALLOW Communion-in-the-hand by indult. Communion-on-the-tongue is ALWAYS correct.

seekingfreedom said:

If you believe this, what are you saying about these two priests?

Click to expand...

They have an opinion that isn't shared by the rest of the Church, including the Bishops.

Jim

SaltwaterHeart said:

As I'm not Catholic, I'm confused on the term of, "Communion In The Hand." I know what a regular Communion is, but what does this mean? Also, what kind-of abuse is it linked to, and why?

Click to expand...

Just trying to answer your questions. Communion-in-the-hand is done when the priest (or extraordinary minister) gives the person Communion in the person's hand and not in the universal way (on the person's tongue.)

Sometimes it leads to disrespect against Jesus who is the Eucharist and that is an abuse. Corinthians speaks about not receiving Communion worthily and not recognizing Jesus in Communion. We (and the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Eastern Catholics) take that very seriously.

AMDG

If the Lord is not recognized in the Eucharist, what's to prevent that from happening even when given in the hand. (The person grabs the Consecrated Host, pretends to put Him in his mouth--walks to his seat--spits out the Consecrated Host so that he can break off a piece for his child or for other puposes. The abuse is there whether there is Communion on the Tongue or in the Hand.

Click to expand...

That's the point I'm making. So lets not force the gymnastics of receiving in a unnatural way, where the ministers fingers often touch the communicant's tongue?

If we are going there. Why not also point out that Matthew 26:23 ("He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish shall betray me"?

Click to expand...

Jesus wasn't talking about the Eucharist there.

As a former extraordinary minister, I have to admit that putting Jesus onto a dirty hand covered in marks and what looked like old telephone numbers didn't seem all that right. Although what was worse yet was the grab and pop into mouth as the person hurried by the extraordinary ministers to get out the door before the Mass was even over.

Click to expand...

And putting the host on the tongue of a person who has a virus and touches your fingers, where you then pass that on to the next person receiving is better how ?

Again, it's the abuse that matters and I'm afraid that Communion-in-the-hand often leads to abuse and not reverence.

Click to expand...

Not anymore than receiving on the tongue, which you stated above, is there whether receiving on the tongue or hand.

BTW only SOME places ALLOW Communion-in-the-hand by indult. Communion-on-the-tongue is ALWAYS correct.

Click to expand...

Few places don't allow Communion in the hand. Even Papal Masses, people have the choice, unless they received from Pope Benedict XVI who mandated that those who received from him, had to receive on the tongue.

But being he had no desire or inspiration to change the indult, it remains and is preferred by most Catholics, even those who are very reverent.

Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

What do you mean "IF THAT HAPPENED ?" It in fact did. People received on the tongue and later in their pew, coughed it into their hand. People received on the tongue, walked out of the church and spit it onto the ground.

Click to expand...

There are more ways that an abuse is possible by receiving Holy Communion in the hand. My disclaimer again: I'm not saying that Catholics shouldn't receive Holy Communion in the hand. They can because the bishops have said that they can.

LivingWordUnity said:

There are a lot more ways that an abuse is possible by receiving Holy Communion in the hand.

Click to expand...

Abuse is possible regardless of receiving on the tongue or hand.

Until the Church prohibits us from receiving on the hand, you shouldn't be preaching against it to Catholics who prefer to receive on the hand, just so you'll feel more Catholic.


Jim

JimR-OCDS said:

Abuse is possible regardless of receiving on the tongue or hand.

Until the Church prohibits us from receiving on the hand, you shouldn't be preaching against it to Catholics who prefer to receive on the hand, just so you'll feel more Catholic.

Jim

Click to expand...

I didn't say that it's not possible for an abuse to happen by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. I'm only saying that it seems less likely, and there are more ways possible for an abuse to happen by Holy Communion given in the hand. And I'm not saying that Catholics should not receive Holy Communion in the hand if they want to. Since this is matter of discipline, and disciplines are subject to possible future change, we can talk in a general way about the pros and cons without being against the current decision made by the bishops on the subject.

After conversion to Orthodoxy, the "in the hand" or "on the tongue" conundrum isn't a conundrum at all! Option 3: from the spoon!

There was some talk about an extraordinary minister's fingers (or the priest's) fingers touching the tongue. Honestly have NEVER known this to happen. (Both priests and extraordinary ministers are trained to give Communion--they hold the Eucharist by the edge--hold it up for the Communicant to reverence and then again by holding the Consecrated Host by the edge transfers the Consecrated Host to the Communicant's proffered tongue. Reminds me of the prayer "By His Hand we must be fed")

At any rate, the extraordinary minister MUST hold up the Consecrated Host (by it's edge) so the Communicant may reverence before EITHER placing the host in the Communicant's hand or on the tongue. Communion is NOT dealt out like a deck of cards.

The "normal" or "preferred" way to receive communion is on your knees and on the tongue. Receiving while standing and in the hands is the optional way.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

After conversion to Orthodoxy, the "in the hand" or "on the tongue" conundrum isn't a conundrum at all! Option 3: from the spoon!

Click to expand...

concretecamper said:

The "normal" or "preferred" way to receive communion is on your knees and on the tongue. Receiving while standing and in the hands is the optional way.

Click to expand...

Just the opposite in the U.S.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

After conversion to Orthodoxy, the "in the hand" or "on the tongue" conundrum isn't a conundrum at all! Option 3: from the spoon!

Click to expand...

And Eastern Orthodoxy uses buns (at least they did in the book I read about the Byzantine Empire, things might have changed) so that may lead to less abuse.

We don't use "buns," we use a leavened full loaf of bread baked by parishioners. It is baked and prayed over with a special recipe and process. We truly are eating from one loaf--one bread, one body for real!

Solace Girl said:

And Eastern Orthodoxy uses buns (at least they did in the book I read about the Byzantine Empire, things might have changed) so that may lead to less abuse.

Click to expand...