Is Receiving The Body Of Christ In The Hand A Liturgical Abuse?

[Nihil Obstat]

[Ed Normile]

Since Vatican II many things have been "snuck" into the Church using the excuse " in the spirit of Vatican II" meaning that although it was not specifically ascribed by Vatican II it was not proscribed either, this is the same as communion of the Blood species which was the providence of the priest only. Many of these thing that were allowed this way are slowly being addressed. We have to rely on the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to work this out. I can say communion in the hand is not very reverant, but these days you do not get a choice most places. I have been to mass where they auto-thrust it into your hand, I have had priests get an odd look on their face when you stick out your tongue for communion. I would not want to receive on the tongue by an EMHC, al;though I try to get in a line the actual priest is serving, I am not a line hopper either, I feel its too distracting to do that in mass. I know Jesus is forgiving, and I will rely on His Infinite Mercy as I do the best I can do under the current situation.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

It is also my personal belief (and constant prayer) that the indult allowing communion in the hand will be removed within the next five to ten years, Assuming we keep moving in the direction we've seen over the last few years.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1295324924' post='2201254']
So then there is no objective measure of what a liturgical abuse is? I mean if we can just start defining liturgical abuse in any way we want, then anything or nothing can be a liturgical abuse. That seems a little off...
[/quote]

I believe that there are different types of liturgical abuse and for each type there is an objective measure. For example, while women "priests", dancing puppets, and a glass chalice are liturgical abuses, they fall under different categories imo. A dancing puppet would be more like an extrinsic liturgical abuse, for example. On the other hand, a woman "priest" would make the entire Mass invalid.

[CatholicCid]

Since it is allowed (where I live) by indult, I do not think it is a liturgical abuse in those places where allowed. So, no vote.

[HopefulBride]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1295323784' post='2201242']
Interesting comments. But its hard to see where you're actually coming down on this - so liturgical abuse or not?
[/quote]

Are you asking for our opinions or what we know to be facts?

My opinion is I prefer to receive on the tongue that is how I was taught and that is what I prefer. I am not at all comfortable (myself) receiving in the hand.

So to answer whether or not I think it is abuse, I can't say because it depends. I look at what people do with the Eucharist and their demeanor as they receive rather than the manner in which they receive.

Edited January 18, 2011 by HopefulBride

[infinitelord1]

I was taught to receive it in my hand in my First Communion. Ive never done it any other way.

Edited January 21, 2011 by infinitelord1

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295589622' post='2202470']
I was taught to receive it in my hand in my First Communion. Ive never done it any other way.
[/quote]

As was I, but I think it's much more reverent to receive on the tongue, so I started doing that and yeah . . . good story rite?

I don't know if it's an abuse but it seems to perpetuate carelessness/irreverence so that's where I stand.

[Tally Marx]

Well, my bishop allows it, so I cannot say that it is wrong/a sin to receive in the hand. It is how I was taught to receive Him.
However, receiving Jesus on the tongue is the traditional way, and the preferred way. This is how I receive Him now. There are several reasons I switched.

1) If He is in my hand, little particles of Him might stick to my hand. And I don't want to be responsible for dropping any of Him.
2) Being able to hold Jesus is just something I think should be reserved for priests, because they consecrate the host and are ordained. They are marked and set aside to do just that. I'm not. No, I do not have some great theological argument to support this opinion. It's just my opinion.
3) Yes, I [i]can [/i]receive in the hand. But I also [i]can [/i]get away this receiving Jesus only during Easter, and going to confession only once a year. The point: I don't do what I [i]can[/i] just because it's permissible. I like to do the best I can. And doing what the Church [i]rathers[/i] (as opposed to what the Church merely [i]allows[/i]) typically means doing the best possible.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295326339' post='2201271']
It is also my personal belief (and constant prayer) that the indult allowing communion in the hand will be removed within the next five to ten years, Assuming we keep moving in the direction we've seen over the last few years.
[/quote]

that would be awesome

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1295631794' post='2202536']
that would be awesome
[/quote]

Agreed.

[kafka]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1295325433' post='2201261']
Cardinal Bernardin played a pivotal role in manipulating the American bishops into promoting Communion in the hand. As Our Lady’s warned on July 15, 1978:

"Again and again I wander to and fro directing My children to remain close to the Eucharist, the Bread of life. But do not become misguided: Do not accept My Son's Body in your hands. Satan, Lucifer, came as an angel of light and set his agents among the hierarchy of My Son's Church and deluded them. All manner of abominations are being committed upon My Son's Body now." - Our Lady, July 15, 1978

[/quote]
I'm curious which apparition this quote is taken from?

my opinion is that it is not a liturgical abuse. Nor is the mode of reception of Communion a matter of doctrine or dogma. It is a discipline, so the Church can permit one or the other from time to time or place to place.

The more important aspect of receiving Communion is interior reverence of the heart and mind. An exterior reverent practice or discipline may or may not assist reverence depending on the person. The Pharisees practiced many exterior disciplines and they were white-washed sepulchres, interiorly irreverant toward God and the things of God.

Finally we are permitted to consume the Host. This is much more intimate and thorough than touching the Host on the tongue or the hand (both are forms of touching). So no it isnt a liturgical abuse.

So it may be changed back in the near future but the more important aspect always remains: Interior reverence, cooperation with grace, living a moral life, acceptance of all teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and so on.

Edited January 21, 2011 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't believe that Communion in the Hand is conducive towards reverence for Christ in our current culture.

[kafka]

Reverance for Christ proceeds from the soul. So for a person who is interiorly reverent, a bow and reception in the hand can be a sufficient exterior expression or reverence before consuming regardless of culture.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1295643249' post='2202632']
Reverence for Christ proceeds from the soul. So for a person who is internally reverent, a bow and reception in the hand can be a sufficient exterior expression or reverence before consuming regardless of culture.
[/quote]

True.