Communion in the hand

[JacktheCatholic]

Jim,

My contention is the treatment of Jesus. I know there are others issues like a recipients Faith. But for the person who is ignorant and receiving of the Body on the Tongue insures the Body goes straight to the mouth and stomach where it is intended. When received on the hand it seems we will have Jesus' Body and Blood on clothes and the floor or in someone's pocket or taken to a sadistic group with the intention to profane.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

My contention is the treatment of Jesus. I know there are others issues like a recipients Faith. But for the person who is ignorant and receiving of the Body on the Tongue insures the Body goes straight to the mouth and stomach where it is intended. When received on the hand it seems we will have Jesus' Body and Blood on clothes and the floor or in someone's pocket or taken to a sadistic group with the intention to profane.

Jack, all these things happened in Pre-Vatican II as well.
There's no guarantee that a person who takes communion on the tongue, actually swallowed it.

Don't be mislead by those who think its a Post Vatican II occurrence.

Jim

 

[Magnus Maximus]

I never knew you were to kneel and communion on the tongue was the exception. That is how I was taught and that was back in like 1980, at a Catholic school run by SSND

 

[Magnus Maximus]

How do you think the Apostles at the last supper recieved it? Or the early Christians

 

[AMDG]

I never knew you were to kneel and communion on the tongue was the exception.

Communion in the hand is the exception, the indult. (You should have been taught both Communion-on-the-tongue and communion-in-the-hand since both are accepted. Know that a priest at a parish near me insists on that as the Vatican decrees, but some parishes only teach the indult. :::sorry again, it's quicker to type::: ) We process up the aisle for Communion, and unless the priest puts a kneeler down for us folks who can't seem to get back up from kneeling without help :::it really seems that you younger folks forget about the physical limitations of us older folks with the standing and no kneelers:::, I'd say that Communicating while standing is the general way. (Of course, I believe the Vatican has said that if you receive by kneeling and on-the-tongue, no other sign of veneration is required.)

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Communion in the hand is the exception, the indult. (You should have been taught both Communion-on-the-tongue and communion-in-the-hand since both are accepted. Know that a priest at a parish near me insists on that as the Vatican decrees, but some parishes only teach the indult. :::sorry again, it's quicker to type::: ) We process up the aisle for Communion, and unless the priest puts a kneeler down for us folks who can't seem to get back up from kneeling without help :::it really seems that you younger folks forget about the physical limitations of us older folks with the standing and no kneelers:::, I'd say that Communicating while standing is the general way. (Of course, I believe the Vatican has said that if you receive by kneeling and on-the-tongue, no other sign of veneration is required.)

We were taught both- But told to use our hands, further I didn't know you could kneel until I saw someone do it a year ago.

 

[LondonAssyrian]

Firstly, to describe my experience, during First Holy Communion, we were instructed to recieve on the hand or on the tongue. The child was given the choice. During secondary school, my headmaster encouraged us to receive on the tongue, highlighting it's greater reverance.

I feel that throughout all this debate we are losing the essence of the celebration of the Eucharist. As others have stated in this thread, reverance does not arise merely from actions, and it is in our hearts which reverance lies. We can adhere to all practicalities perfectly, but if our hearts do not have the right reverance, our actions are nothing more than hollow gestures.

Those that encourage reception of the Eucharist on the tongue have reverance in mind I feel, they do not wish to see the Eucharist defiled. We can only encourage such ideals. But I feel limiting the reception of the Eucharist on the hand is an unnecessary step, considering the Church deems it suitable and that it does not inhibit us from recieving Christ reverantly imo.

The most pertinent point I feel is that the Eucharist can be defiled just as easily with the tongue as with the hand. Neither provides the guarantee that the Eucharist will be fully consumed. We trust our fellow Communicants that they will treat our Lord with the proper treatment He deserves. It remains, with either method of Communion, that those intent on defiling Our Lord, can do so.

To combat the improper treatment of Our Lord, we can only truly rely on accurate teaching of the mystery of the Eucharist and what it is we are truly consuming.

 

[Antisock]

Personally, I think on the tongue develops a greater reverance and respect.

If on the hand developed as great a reverance then people would be converting to "on the tongue" so as to respect Jesus' body and avoid any chance of profaning His body.

But we all have to develop our own understanding and reverance, huh?

How does that answer these questions that were asked?:

Please answer:

Do you think it possible to receive either on the tongue or hand with the same attitudinal disposition of reverence in ones heart?

What else does God care about?

 

[Antisock]

On May 29, 1969, in the document Memoriale Domini the Church gave permission for the faithful to return to the ancient ritual practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand and the practice went into effect in the United States on November 20, 1977.​

Lay people could now receive Holy Communion reverently, either on their tongue or in their hand.​

About this practice, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the 4th century: “Make your left hand a throne for your right, because your right is going to receive the King; make a hollow of your palm and receive the body of Christ, saying after it: ‘Amen!’ … Then, after you have partaken of the body of Christ, come forward to the chalice of His blood…”.​

 

[Antisock]

Reverence is understanding in your heart that you are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that you are united with him in his body, blood, soul and divinity.

It matters little if I receive from the hand or on the tongue, the point is what is going on in the sacrament itself.

I don't begrudge anyone who desires to receive on the tongue. But I've had it with those who do who continually open threads like this to tell those who receive on the hand, that they are not being reverent and respectful and should stop.

Its the highest act of religious arrogance.

Jim

I have only very rarely ever recieved on the hand (and only to see if it made a difference to me and it didn't) for decades and I am sick of spiritual pride too.

No one has any right to begrudge anyone what the Church approves of.

 

[LondonAssyrian]

What disheartens me are those who recieve the Body but not the Blood of Christ. Such behaviour does not make sense to me.

 

[Antisock]

What disheartens me are those who recieve the Body but not the Blood of Christ. Such behaviour does not make sense to me.

Read this:

The present law allows quite a few occasions when the Holy Eucharist may be received under both species. However, Christ is received whole and entire under one form only, for He dies no more: body and blood are never separated. (Cf. First Corinthians 11. 26-27, noting that in v. 26, the word and shows that both species are needed to express the death of the Lord, but for Holy Communion, only one species is needed. Hence the word or is used in v. 27).
Holy Communion

 

[epiclesis]

What disheartens me are those who recieve the Body but not the Blood of Christ. Such behaviour does not make sense to me.

You can receive in either species and be receiving both.

Both the host and the wine each contain the Body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ. One does not have to receive both ways in order to receive all of Him.

For example, if someone has Celiac disease and has not made an arrangement for gluten free hosts, they can receive only by cup, and be receiving all of Christ.

 

[epiclesis]

Read this:

The present law allows quite a few occasions when the Holy Eucharist may be received under both species. However, Christ is received whole and entire under one form only, for He dies no more: body and blood are never separated. (Cf. First Corinthians 11. 26-27, noting that in v. 26, the word and shows that both species are needed to express the death of the Lord, but for Holy Communion, only one species is needed. Hence the word or is used in v. 27).
Holy Communion

You beat me.
I'm not as quick with one hand and holding a baby.

 

[AMDG]

Okay, some of you who receive in-the-hand, claim reverence too (and I believe you.) However, the Vatican is the one who said that when there is reception of Communion on-the-tongue and kneeling, no other sign of reverence (no bow) is necessary. And you must admit that there is greater chance for irreverence when Communion is received in-the-hand. (I have even seen the priest--okay he left the priesthood shortly afterward, but that's a different story--rote passing out the Hosts as if he were passing out pennies, and even bouncing it in people's hands!)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is it officially ok to recieve on the tongue, kneeling, if the rest of the congregation take Him by hand whilst standing?

 

[AMDG]

Is it officially ok to recieve on the tongue, kneeling, if the rest of the congregation take Him by hand whilst standing?

It's the Communicant's choice. The priest knows that he must not refuse Communion to those who receive him on-the-tongue. (As far as the kneeling, wouldn't think it forbidden, but since a kneeler isn't provided, I guess only the young would be able to kneel for reception of Our Lord.)

I've even seen half the Extraordinary Ministers receive by hand and half receive on the tongue.

 

[epiclesis]

Is it officially ok to recieve on the tongue, kneeling, if the rest of the congregation take Him by hand whilst standing?

it's ALLOWED, but not recommended. it seems the girm is against it due to causing attention to yourself as well as potentially tripping someone behind you. they cannot refuse you to receive that way.

 

[Colin]

What disheartens me are those who recieve the Body but not the Blood of Christ. Such behaviour does not make sense to me.

In receiving the Eucharist we have several options .

We can receive the Body of Christ on the tongue or in the hand .

We need not receive from the chalice if we choose not to .

We do not have the option to let ourselves be distracted when receiving the Eucharist . We should be as focussed as possible on what we are doing . This precludes irreverent behaviour whereby we are so focussed on what others are doing that we neglect to be in the right prayerful attitude .

 

[Antigone]

What disheartens me are those who recieve the Body but not the Blood of Christ. Such behaviour does not make sense to me.

Over here, it's common practice for the priest alone to take the Blood of Christ. The rest of the congregation only receives the Host.
In the hand, no less.
We're such a bunch of heathens.