Communion in the hand

[Consiglieri]

This is not true. When I received in the hand, I would always look in my hand to check for particles. I have more than once licked my hand afterwards.

And here I thought I was the only one.

As for the rest of this nonsense, receiving Communion in the hand is an option. One must exercise moral responsibility to receive with all due reverence. We are only morally responsible to take precautions that are physically possible. If particles end up not being consumed, Jesus can take care of Himself. Arguing over particles is like arguing over tiny amounts of Precious Blood that might remain on the lips after receiving. Silly.

As for Mother Teresa's quote, I've read a few books about her, and the only place I've ever seen that quote is on the internet. But even it's true, while she was a holy woman, she was not infallible. She is entitled to her opinion just like everyone else.

 

[Antisock]

Its more holy to receive on the tongue:

Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue is Preferred Form - Cardinal Arinze & Redemptionis Sacramentum
But that doesn't mean one should naively try to convince anyone that there can not be good intentions in receiving on the hand too. I know for a fact doing so is an approved indult and see the fullness of the faith as broad enough to offer people more preferences than they may 'desire' personally and impose for others.

That being said about communion; I'd guess 99.99% of the people who hold hands or orans position don't have a clue about its origins or what canon law says about taking personal initiatives or what the rubrics prescribe at Mass and simply do it out of "emotion" and prefer "feeling" that connection with others and our Heavenly Father who is the subject of the prayer.

The Church is aware of this and makes no real bones about it and considers it overly scrupulous to do so. At least according to Cardinal Arinze. He says there is no need to make a big deal of it.

Jump to minute 6:45 here:
Cardinal Arinze (Q&A 2007 Part I)

Concerning holding hands in the Eucharistic Liturgy the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome responded as follows:
Holding Hands at Mass

This is under consideration:
Cardinal Arinze: Pope considering moving sign of peace
http://www.canonlaw.info/liturgysacraments_orans.htm

I invite anyone reading this thread to actually read Redemptionis Sacramentum
http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html

 

[paul becke]

What, with God's grace, saints and theologians of the Church have been able to extrapolate from scripture and tradition down the centuries, from a basis of impenetrable divine mysteries, paradoxes, is surely man's most awesome achievement.

However, since our understanding of God, our relationship to him and his plans for us, is completely spiritual, ultimately, it does not lend itself to the pure reason of the worldly intellect, in the way that mathematics does.

Failure to understand this can express itself in particular misunderstandings. Christ becomes the sacred Host in the sacrament for a purpose; and if that purpose is not to be served - as in the residue of the holy bread, well he is not bound to remain who he is in it.

Likewise, if a satanist were to steal a sacred Host for satanic rites, do you think there is any reason to suppose that our all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent God would feel bound, morally or in any other way, to remain in that piece of bread that he had previously inhabited as it were, to enliven us with his divine spirit?

The purpose of everything is love, on God's part and our part. That end would not be served by treating the residue of a host, in each molecule, after a Christian has eaten the host, proper, as still constituting Christ; nor by allowing himself to be used, in the form of a consecrated Host, in sick ceremonies by devils incarnate. In principle, such matters are variants of the fabled question of the medieval scholastics: "How many angels could dance on the head of a pin." It is worldly intelligence circumscribed by an inability to understands its limitations in particular spiritual contexts.

Of course, such considerations of reverence in the vicinity of Christ in any of his manifestations is of paramount importance. But we need to realise that it is for our good, not God's that we need to preserve it. When I close my bible too sharply, I wince, because I am made aware that, just by acting routinely and naturally, unthinkingly in a perfectly normal way, in relation to the book containing word of God, I have failed to reverence it in the way that is appropriate.

It doesn't really matter to God. He knows we perform ordinary actions, such as closing books, automatically, but he is just reminding me that he thinks of me, even when I've already begun to turn my mind to other things. Great reverence is never misplaced. I was just talking on an intellectual, technical level, concerning the sacred Host, not suggesting that disposal of its residues should be looked upon as a purely secular matter. 'The heart has its reasons...'

 

[Naomi4Christ]

In an interview with Mother Teresa of Calcutta on Good Friday of 1989, Father George Rutler asked, "Mother, what do you think is the worst problem today?" Without any hesitation, Mother Teresa said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

Communion in the hand? The tradition speaks - Commentary

I think that is widely regarded as an urban legend.

If there were any truth in it, my estimations of Mother Teresa would instantly plummet. There are many worse things in the world than how someone receives communion.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

I think that is widely regarded as an urban legend.

If there were any truth in it, my estimations of Mother Teresa would instantly plummet. There are many worse things in the world than how someone receives communion.

The precious Body and Blood of our Savior is very sacred and holy, perhaps moreso than anything else on Earth.

 

[Consiglieri]

The precious Body and Blood of our Savior is very sacred and holy, perhaps moreso than anything else on Earth.

This does nothing to address the last few posts that show how wrong you are. Selective response is a sure sign of defeat.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

This does nothing to address the last few posts that show how wrong you are. Selective response is a sure sign of defeat.

It's not selective response so much as a reluctance to read through posts I've missed while gone.

 

[Consiglieri]

It's not selective response so much as a reluctance to read through posts I've missed while gone.

Same thing.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

If particles end up not being consumed, Jesus can take care of Himself. Arguing over particles is like arguing over tiny amounts of Precious Blood that might remain on the lips after receiving. Silly.

A silly idea indeed, that Christ can "take care of Himself." Why subject our Lord to further abuse? Hasn't He suffered enough for our sake?

 

[Consiglieri]

A silly idea indeed, that Christ can "take care of Himself." Why subject our Lord to further abuse? Hasn't He suffered enough for our sake?

I didn't make it up buddy. I suggest you talk to some priests and maybe a bishop or two. I'm confident you'll find you are wrong.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

I didn't make it up buddy. I suggest you talk to some priests and maybe a bishop or two. I'm confident you'll find you are wrong.

You didn't even read my link, I take it.

 

[plainswolf]

Communion In The Hand

Great Post!

 

[plainswolf]

I have to disagree with you, ChristoetEcclesiae. Christ only ever used the images of the Shepherd and his flock as a metaphor.

The very last thing Christ came down to earth for as a weak human being was to demean us, as feeding us in the way that a literal shepherd might feed a literal sheep or a mother her baby, does.

On the contrary, he came down, not to lord it over us, but as a servant, to teach us what an extraordinary dignity we are endowed with as human beings made in the image of God, eventually to become part of the, at least, extended family of the Most Holy Trinity, God, himself, via our incorporatin into the Mystical Body of Christ, the True Vine.

In fact, excessive clericalism, and insufficient emphasis on the dignity of all his children of light, as priests after the order Melchisedek and forever, has been the bane of the institutional Church.

I love the cult of the saints, the canonised saints, and pray to them every day, but here again, I believe it should have been better balanced with the teaching I referred to above.

Unsurprisingly, as you indicate, it is also imperative for us to maintain an absolute reverence for our all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful Creator. However, I think that receiving the sacred Host in the hand needs not by any manner or means be done with anything but the greatest reverence; while receiving it in the mouth is injurious as a demeaning and excessively literal interpretation of the Good Shepherd metaphor.

"Injurious and demeaning"?

How is giving the greatest possible reverence to God 'demeaning' to you? On the contrary, giving Christ the greatest possible reverence is what lifts us up as children of God, it is was dignifies us as His special creation.


+++

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

"Injurious and demeaning"?

How is giving the greatest possible reverence to God 'demeaning' to you? On the contrary, giving Christ the greatest possible reverence is what lifts us up as children of God, it is was dignifies us as His special creation.


+++

This attitude that many have suggests that they want God brought down to their level, rather than to lift themselves up to His.

 

[plainswolf]

..........

Failure to understand this can express itself in particular misunderstandings. Christ becomes the sacred Host in the sacrament for a purpose; and if that purpose is not to be served - as in the residue of the holy bread, well he is not bound to remain who he is in it.

Likewise, if a satanist were to steal a sacred Host for satanic rites, do you think there is any reason to suppose that our all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent God would feel bound, morally or in any other way, to remain in that piece of bread that he had previously inhabited as it were, to enliven us with his divine spirit?

The purpose of everything is love, on God's part and our part. That end would not be served by treating the residue of a host, in each molecule, after a Christian has eaten the host, proper, as still constituting Christ; nor by allowing himself to be used, in the form of a consecrated Host, in sick ceremonies by devils incarnate. In principle, such matters are variants of the fabled question of the medieval scholastics: "How many angels could dance on the head of a pin." It is worldly intelligence circumscribed by an inability to understands its limitations in particular spiritual contexts.

And we wonder why up to 70% of Catholics don't rightly believe in transubstantiation. I believe one of the biggest reasons is that so much of the external reverence surrounding it has been done away with. In the Tridentine Mass, the priest keeps his finger and thumb tightly together after the consecration, so as not to allow even the most minute particle to fall. Things like this were done for a reason, and greatly reinforce belief in the True Presence.

That Christ can 'unbind' Himself from the sacred Host is a non-sequitor - the Host IS Christ - It is only the appearance of bread that remains after the Consecration. It is not something to 'unbind' Himself from because it IS Him..

What to you may seem like overly rigid or 'clerical' rubrics, as in the traditional Mass, served to greatly reinforce the absolute sanctity of the sacred Host.

I've stood in lines to receive lots of things in life; stood in line till I was handed such things as papers, cookies or a blanket, etc. But when I kneel to receive Communion, and the great care and sanctity with which it is given, on the tongue, one can't help but to know they are receiving something incredibly profound and Holy.


+++

 

[Antisock]

A silly idea indeed, that Christ can "take care of Himself." Why subject our Lord to further abuse? Hasn't He suffered enough for our sake?

Of course the Church in her rubrics does not wish to subject the Lord to abuse. There are safeguards but we do not get to pick the stringency of those safeguards. The bride of Christ does.

Here are a couple of matters to be concerned with:

Extreme reverence is commendable and noble and no one can begrudge faithfulness even unto death, if indeed "faithful." However, such extremes can be as insincere as any other show that is in effect a spiritual white wash. (Math 5:6, 23:27) Ultimately, its whats in hearts which only God can judge that counts.

Another matter to be concerned with is loyalty and faithfulness to the bride of Christ - being the Church, who has almost always provided for communion in the hand and indeed officially continues to do so with all the authority of the keys of binding. Its the Lords will to follow in obedience who he left us to. We should do so gladly for his sake.

You see, if the Church officially provides for communion, kneeling, standing, in the hand, on the tongue, under one species or two, intinction on a gold spoon etc, then who are we to question the wisdom of the bride of Christ to safeguard the body of the Lord (which its the Church) who first and foremost teaches us is the source and summit of our faith?

If one thinks the church herself is not safeguarding the body of Christ adequately then they may want to look at themselves and question if they are being overly scrupulous. If they are, then a cure can be to adjust in obedient loyalty to the Church.

At least according to the late Fr. John Hardon, advisory to JPII and co-author of the CCC. He says:

SCRUPULOSITY
The habit of imagining sin where none exists, or grave sin where the matter is venial. To overcome scrupulosity, a person needs to be properly instructed in order to form a right conscience, and in extreme cases the only remedy is absolute obedience (for a time) to a prudent confessor.
CatholicReference.net : Catholic Dictionary

If one has a problem with trust, its already in writing for all to see.

 

[AMDG]

Antisock, are you of the impression that the Church has ordered Communion-in-the-hand in lieu of Communion-on-the-tongue and if we are obedient we will just receive Communion in hand? If so, you are wrong. And you should read that link in ChristoEtEcclesiae's post. It's a choice--an indult, if you will. And it's up to the Communicant.

 

[Antisock]

Antisock, are you of the impression that the Church has ordered Communion-in-the-hand in lieu of Communion-on-the-tongue and if we are obedient we will just receive Communion in hand? If so, you are wrong. And you should read that link in ChristoEtEcclesiae's post. It's a choice--an indult, if you will. And it's up to the Communicant.

Oh no, not at all. Not sure why you got the idea that I might be because I attempted to reiterate the official position of the Church, unless you disagree with that official postion that is.

And I did read his link, that whole page in fact and though I find most of the information on it legitimate, I did not find its bias any less than hypocritical and disingenuous in the way it failed to reference that slant.

I am under the impressions that (beginning in South America) Bishops petitioned the Holy See to approve this indult which spread to the rest of America.

Its not an either or situation but a "both - and" as is supported by ample official church promulgations which applies only where the indult is approved.

Its also my understanding that this indult is not approved world wide.

I think my "personal opinion" should have been evident with my post linking to statements from Cardinal Arinze.

Thats just the thing though, our personal opinions are irrelevant at best and become a problem when they attempt to impose themselves on others contrary to what the Church officially sanctions.

Thats why I referenced adoremus and could reference many more documents on the reception of communion.

There are none that forbid the Church approved indult.

Only personal opinions are for or against this indult and when they are either at the exception of the other, they are erroneous in either direction.

Just like the Catholic who pics and chooses which issues to be faithful and loyal to the Church on. It amounts to protesting and hypocrisy.

 

[Colin]

Oh no, not at all. Not sure why you got the idea that I might be because I attempted to reiterate the official position of the Church, unless you disagree with that official postion that is.
.

Don't expect people to be rational on this minor topic .
They are suffering from tunnel vision .

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

Don't expect people to be rational on this minor topic .
They are suffering from tunnel vision .

And you and others clearly do not understand the significance of the Blessed Sacrament.