Communion in the hand

[AMDG]

The rest of the congregation only receives the Host.
In the hand, no less.

Well if you want to receive the other way (faster typing) Cardinal Arinze says it's okay. BTW, I've known folks who have switched.

 

[LondonAssyrian]

But why choose not to receive the Blood when it is available?

I understand that when we receive the Body or Blood, we are receiving Christ fully, I just don't understand, where when one can receive Christ from the chalice, they choose not to.

Forgive me, both in instances where I am ignorant of the Church's teaching and where it seems I am being judgemental. Understand that I'm merely trying to gain insight into why people do so and not as a means of reprimanding them for their behaviour.

 

[AMDG]

But why choose not to receive the Blood when it is available?

It isn't necessary to receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour.

 

[LondonAssyrian]

Did the apostles decline to receive the Blood at the Last Supper?

Forgive me for my ignorance.

 

[AMDG]

Did the apostles decline to receive the Blood at the Last Supper?

Forgive me for my ignorance.

That just doesn't enter in to it. When one receives Communion under either form--Consecrated bread or Consecrated wine--one receives the entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.

Reception of Communion under both forms is not truly necessary.

 

[Antisock]

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

Read this:

Kneeling - Responses from Congregation for Divine Worship in Notitiae

and this:

CNS STORY: Bishop says Catholics should kneel, receive communion on tongue

and here:

Eucharistic Piety

NOTE:

None of that provided to discount the legitimacy of the officially approved indult for those who prefer that option.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

A person who kneels when they approach to receive can not be refused Holy Communion, but they should be given proper catechises afterwards by the pastor and that is, in the USA in most cases, we stand to receive Holy Communion.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But why choose not to receive the Blood when it is available?

.

During the flu season, I refrain from receiving from the cup, because in the past I picked up every virus that was around.

Then when I witnessed how our deacon cleans the cups, I understood why. He just rinses them out in cold water.


Having asthma and at my age, getting a virus is not a good thing.



Jim

 

[Antisock]

A person who kneels when they approach to receive can not be refused Holy Communion, but they should be given proper catechises afterwards by the pastor and that is, in the USA in most cases, we stand to receive Holy Communion.

Jim

Source?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Source?

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

USCCB - (Liturgy) - In the May 2002 BCL Newsletter...

 

[LondonAssyrian]

That just doesn't enter in to it. When one receives Communion under either form--Consecrated bread or Consecrated wine--one receives the entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.

Reception of Communion under both forms is not truly necessary.

I understand that when we recieve either the Body or the Blood alone, we receive Christ fully. I understand that Christ does not come in doses, and that by taking only the Body, we are not receiving only ''half'' of Christ.

I have been to Mass where only the Body is available, but never where the Blood alone is available. Why is this the case?

If receiving both forms of Communion is truly unnecessary in every sense, then why are they both available during Mass?

These are not questions where I'm trying to prove a point, I am genuinely trying to gain insight and a fuller understanding of the Sacrament. Has there ever been a period in the Church's history where only the Body was adminstered and then the Blood was offered too? My understanding that is we offer both Body and Blood in remembrance of Christ.

Forgive me for my ignorance and again I do not mean to come across as judgemental, I just seek a deeper understanding of the Eucharist and it has been something that has been dwelling on my mind recently. I apologise for diverting the subject of the thread.

 

[Antisock]

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

USCCB - (Liturgy) - In the May 2002 BCL Newsletter...

Thanks;

So if I know this is the norm but I choose to kneel anyway, I can right?

Just as if I have an altar rail my pastor uses I can kneel right?

Just as if I want to recieve in the hand/tongue I can and not be refused right?

 

[Antisock]

I understand that when we recieve either the Body or the Blood alone, we receive Christ fully. I understand that Christ does not come in doses, and that by taking only the Body, we are not receiving only ''half'' of Christ.

I have been to Mass where only the Body is available, but never where the Blood alone is available. Why is this the case?

If receiving both forms of Communion is truly unnecessary in every sense, then why are they both available during Mass?

These are not questions where I'm trying to prove a point, I am genuinely trying to gain insight and a fuller understanding of the Sacrament. Has there ever been a period in the Church's history where only the Body was adminstered and then the Blood was offered too? My understanding that is we offer both Body and Blood in remembrance of Christ.

Forgive me for my ignorance and again I do not mean to come across as judgemental, I just seek a deeper understanding of the Eucharist and it has been something that has been dwelling on my mind recently. I apologise for diverting the subject of the thread.

USCCB - Committee on the Liturgy - Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Antisock

Thanks;

You're welcome

So if I know this is the norm but I choose to kneel anyway, I can right?

As it says, you can't be refused Holy Communion, but you should be given proper instruction on why standing is the norm. From this point, you'd have to examine yourself as to why you feel you need to be different than the rest of the congregation.

Just as if I have an altar rail my pastor uses I can kneel right?

If that's the norm for your parish, you should kneel. If I visited a parish and they congregation kneels to receive, then I will.

Just as if I want to recieve in the hand/tongue I can and not be refused right?

Different, because receiving in the hand isn't the norm, and you wouldn't require catechises if you chose to receive on the tongue.

Kneeling when receiving when the rest of the congregation is standing presents two problems. First, depending on the situation, you could end up tripping some one, as they're not expecting a person's legs to be sticking out behind them. Two, the priest has to bend down especially if he's standing on first step of to the altar area as many do.

Either way, its up to the individual pastors to provide the catechises on why at their parish, everyone should stand to receive Holy Communion.

Lets face it, there will always be people who will want to do one better over those who kneel and who knows what they'll do.


Jim

 

[AMDG]

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

USCCB - (Liturgy) - In the May 2002 BCL Newsletter...

Yes, but Cardinal Arinze said that the decree was never meant to deny folks the option of kneeling. Look up that Manditum (pretty sure I have the spelling wrong)

 

[LondonAssyrian]

USCCB - Committee on the Liturgy - Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Looks like this will clear up a lot of my queries, even if I don't live in the States . Thank you.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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?

The first question, I can only answer for myself, and I have. I find on the tongue to be more reverant.

The second is something I cannot answer either since it is for God.

Maybe you could give us your answers to these?

 

[AMDG]

Here's an article showing that people can receive Communion while kneeling:

Holy See: People May Kneel After They Receive Holy Communion

About having both the Body and the Blood offered for Communion, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's just the Body that is offered. But I know once, at a children's Mass held at a public school (many times public schools around here, host Church services--it's all about money) there weren't enough hosts available, so when they ran out, just about all received only with the Blood. Then someone mentioned celiac disease where one simply can't take wheat so they would need to receive Communion by the Blood.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

Every time I get a chance to log in, I find myself falling further and further behind in this thread.

Firstly, St Cyril also wrote "...sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ's Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs." How many of you guys actually do this?

Secondly, from the Council of Rouen: "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths."

Thirdly, Communion on the tongue was the definitive practice for what, 1600 years? One source (St. Cyril) says that it is fine to receive on the hand, so automatically everyone decides that the next 1500-1600 years of Church teaching and practice is made irrelevant just because modernist popes and one early Catholic saint said so? What about St. Basil, who said "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution?"

Read this list of quotations (Communion In The Hand - Quotations) and tell me that they don't trump St. Cyril and recent, questionable popes.

 

[Consiglieri]

Horse...dead. You receive on the tongue only. Leave the rest of us alone.