Communion In Hand Or On Tounge: Is There Any Debate?

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='Chiquitunga' timestamp='1298785558' post='2216071'][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0[/url] [/quote]

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkOZg0xty6s

[Tony]

[img]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1003/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.png[/img]

[Mr.Cat]

To add to my personal preference, I tend to only receive from a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop. Which because of the Latin Mass Community and Anglican Use Community, that is very possible and convenient. Likewise I personally prefer reception by intinction, which the Anglican Use Community does on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Groo the Wanderer]

No need for debate. The Pope has spoken and the experiment will be coming to an end soon.

On the tongue, preferably kneeling please. FSSP FTW!

[Socrates]

Is There Any Debate?

Nah, we never debate that on here . . .

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1298921414' post='2216496']
To add to my personal preference, I tend to only receive from a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop. Which because of the Latin Mass Community and Anglican Use Community, that is very possible and convenient. Likewise I personally prefer reception by intinction, which the Anglican Use Community does on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.
[/quote]


Here we go again ... cmaria is RUNNING AWAY before getting into the discussion about extraordinary eucharistic ministers ...

RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1298940388' post='2216634']
Here we go again ... cmaria is RUNNING AWAY before getting into the discussion about extraordinary eucharistic ministers ...

RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY


[/quote]


extraordinary eucharistic ministers? No such thing. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion? yes. Only the priest is a 'eucharistic minister' so to say, since only he can confect the Eucharist. :-)

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1298940388' post='2216634']Here we go again ... cmaria is RUNNING AWAY before getting into the discussion about extraordinary eucharistic ministers ...

RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY

[/quote]

[Chiquitunga]

moving a conversation in a VS thread to here (because I don't want to see that thread closed due to debating)

 

ToJesusMyHeart: And for those to whom it matters, the Dallas Carmelites all receive our Lord kneeling and on the tongue. I know for some it doesn't matter, but for others this is of great importance. They also use the communion flap to cover their eyes.

 

VeniJesuAmorMi: Would anyone happen to know of other communities that do this as well? I know this isn't a deciding factor for wanting to enter; it really is where Our Lord chooses. However, I do receive this way so I am interested to find out.  :)

 

Chiquitunga: In reply your first question, I would be very surprised to learn that any Carmel under the 1990s receives Holy Communion in the hand .. very much most likely not. I also prefer to receive this way, following the strong feelings Blessed Teresa of Calcutta has on this, but do not judge others, as receiving on the hand was the only way I learned in CCD  :(

I am sure many/or some 1991 Carmels only receive on the tongue also though, I am guessing, although I did run into this once on an association meeting in Detroit of the Mary, Queen of Carmel Association

http://churchhistory...hat-heresy.html

 

"While I was staying at the Passionist Retreat Center there was a conference of Carmelite nuns going on—a meeting of about a hundred cloistered nuns—mostly the Prioresses (mothers superior) and Formation Directors (novice-mistresses) of various monasteries in the United States and Canada, though I did see some younger nuns with the white veils of novices. It was interesting seeing these women outside their monasteries. They were anything but a somber group. There was much laughter and a strong sense of family. They looked very traditional—almost all in the same habit their predecessors had worn for centuries though a few had modified veils that showed a wisp of hair. They were very serious when it came time for prayer and it was a privilege to attend their Mass each morning. I served the Mass—or rather I served the old priest who celebrated the Mass for them each morning. I was surprised to note that at communion not a single nun received communion on the tongue. Young and old, reverent all, but each nun extended her hands to receive Holy Communion. I mentioned this one day at lunch—I had my meals with them in the retreat dining room—and the nuns at the table all thought for a moment and then began to discuss it. They had never given it much thought, they agreed, it just seemed natural to them. Then one older nun—the prioress of a Carmel on the West Coast—said “Well, why wouldn’t we? The Incarnation is the central mystery of our lives. Holy Mother (Saint Teresa of Avila) says that we should meditate on either the Passion or the Incarnation. When you meditate on the Word Becoming Flesh, you burn with desire to hold the Flesh of the Lord for yourself. In this sacrament, his Flesh becomes our Flesh and our Flesh becomes his. Why should be afraid to touch him? He is our Spouse, the deepest Desire of our being.”


I do not post this to judge them though, just in reply to Veni's question. All of these nuns are beautiful members of Christ's Mystical Body and His Beloved Spouses  :heart:


p.s. reading your question again, I see you are asking both about receiving on the tongue and kneeling ... after a quick memory scan of some of the different 1990 Carmels I know of .. I know of none that receives standing, I'm pretty sure  :like:

nunsense: While I was Kirk Edge (a 1990) Carmel, we switched from receiving on the tongue to receiving in the hand because the Bishop asked everyone in the diocese to do so and Reverend Mother told us that obedience was more important than our own personal feelings and said we should. The Bishop requested this and also stopped the use of the chalice for the congregation because, at the time, there was a scare about some disease going around - I think it might have been Swine Flu (that was in 2009 and I can't remember). We still went up to the Communion window and knelt down but we received on the hand, put the host in our mouth and then got up from the kneeler. So really, nothing is set in stone it seems. They may have switched back since then if the Bishop felt the danger was past (that was nearly 4 years ago).

 

Chiquitunga: Wow, interesting... thanks for sharing nunsense! It's good to know that ordinarily kneeling and receiving on the tongue was what they did/or do again now. But yes, obedience is always the most important. If both the bishop and Reverend Mother Prioress asked, of course you would do so.

The practice of receiving Holy Communion on the hand did actually come from disobedience .. in Germany I believe it was .. then it was allowed .. but it was first an act of disobedience. A very knowledgeable priest shared this with me, but I do not remember all the details. I can ask him though.

But again, if I had been in Kirk Edge at the time and both the local bishop and Prioress requested this, I would obey them, and then be sure to lick my hands (discreetly/when/if possible) where the Host was placed. A Jesuit priest once told me this should be the norm for those who receive in the hand .. to be very careful no crumbs are left on your hand. Depending on the type of Host used, some can leave lots of crumbs as they do at my local parish.. I very often find them on the ledge outside the tabernacle. It is sad ..  :( We've lost so much ..

 

Graciela: I think future priests and religious, especially, should also be aware that the practice of the early church was always to receive communion in the hand. There are beautiful quotes in the writings of the early fathers of the church about receiving the body of Christ reverently in one's hands. For example, this one from 4th century by 
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
(Cateches. Mystagog. v.(1))
"When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen."

It was also common for lay people to take some of the consecrated bread home, from which they would communicate themselves during the week or to share with the sick who could not be at Sunday Eucharist. And the early church comunities shared the sacrament under both species. 

It is important for people to know the history of liturgical practices and learn that things in Christendom have not been fixed in Council of Trent style for 2 millenia. If you are not informed, you can be deceived by those who want to make their opinion your law. 

I endorse neither method of receiving the Blessed Sacrament as preferred- I do pray that we always approach this great gift with holy reverance and gratitude for the merciful love it demonstrates.\

 

VeniJesuAmorMi: The Church accepts both ways, so both are the right way for sure.  :) I find that communities differ about how to receive, but as you said too that either way should be done with great love and reverence (and also obedience to The Church); which I believe (and hope!) that they all do, and that I also will always receive with great reverence and love in my heart.

 

 

inperpetuity: Although I already knew this, I didn't think I could articulate it as well, so I presented this explanation to a good, holy priest I know who is in 100% communion with the Holy See.  This is what he replied:

 

"This is a case of an idea called antiquarianism condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical "Mediator Dei". This error states that just because something was done in the past, it means that it should be done today. However, this disregards the wisdom of the Saints and the legitimate development of Doctrine in the Church. For instance, the full reality and consequences of the Truth of the Real Presence was not as thoroughly understood in the early Church until the more profound understanding of Metaphysics and Transubstantiation was expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas and defined as Dogma in the 1200's. Over time, the Church has developed a much stronger sense of reverence for the True Presence even in the small Particles of the Eucharist. For instance, the priest must hold his fingers together after touching the Eucharist lest any particles be lost. He only allows his fingers (that touch the Eucharist) to separate after he ritually cleanses his fingers after Communion. Thus, the idea of the Eucharist be handled by unconsecrated hands that are not ritually cleansed has the effect of diminishing the belief and reverence in the True Presence that has increased since the 1200's. Communion in the hand inevitably means that Sacred Particles end up remaining on people's hands and then are simply transferred to WHEREEVER??!! those hands may end up touching in the course of the next few hours. KYRIE ELEISON. For instance, it is not completely uncommon to see Communicants brushing their hands on their clothes after Communion. And there are much less reverent places that the Sacred Particles end up. CHRISTE ELEISON. For instance, it is a fact that satanists have been grateful that thanks to Communion in the hand, they can now steal Hosts with great ease so that they can desecrate the Holy Eucharist in their black masses. KYRIE ELEISON." Fr. X.

I agree:   If you are not informed, you can be deceived by those who want to make their opinion your law.   

 

 

 

Chiquitunga: inperpetuity, thank you so much for that.... what a great explanation there from this priest!

 

I have been meaning to reply here, but at the same time did not want to debate. It would be a shame to see this thread closed, as it has turned out to be pretty interesting and information packed on different Carmels  :like: I was searching for a good thread to link to respond in the Debate table, but cannot find any good ones not archived already. But here is a post I made in one last year, http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/111302-communion-in-hand-or-on-tounge-is-there-any-debate/?p=2216071

 

I would recommend especially watching the first few minutes of the one by the young man Gabriel regarding pieces of the Host remaining on one's hands. I am pretty sure I can remember brushing excess crumbs that remained on my hand on my clothes too ....  :( pretty sure about that.. The Church does asks that the faithful receiving on the hand take precautions that no Sacred Particle be lost. Gabriel quotes this from a document, although I cannot remember which one. But he sums up this point pretty well here in the second part. 

 

I too knew of the early Christians receiving Our Lord on the hand, but it was done in a much different way as articulated well here by Bishop Athanasius Schneider (whole video is worth watching)

 

In my above statement then, I should have said, the re-introduction of Communion in the hand originated in disobedience, and was done so for years before being permitted. And as the holy priest (not extreme Traditionalist, btw) who told me this said, "God will not build anything on that foundation."

 

 

Graciela: I do not want to cause a stir or debate in response to inperpetuity's post but the priest and the encyclical she reports seem to dismiss a saint and doctor of the church, St. cyril of Jerusalem, as antiquarian and not really appreciative of the Real Presence. I feel some urge to point out that some of these early saints and doctors of the church write beautifully about the Eucharist and the reception of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Their devotion and faith were not deficient because the "how is Christ present?" question that St. Thomas Aquinas answered with the delineation of transubstantiation had not yet been debated and defined.

The church currently allows both means of receiving and so this priest's implication that receiving in the hand risks sacred particles being lost or satanists stealing hosts seems to imply that the magisterial decision to allow reception in hand is in error. I do share the concern that some who approach communion and receive in the hand are very casual about it and that much better catechesis is/was needed. That's way I liked St. Cyril's instructions about how to receive in the hand with one hand cupped beneath the other and moving both up to

the mouth as a good examples of how to receive in the hand reverently and carefully.

 

To respond to this really quick, but I do not think the priest quoted in inperpetuity's post about antiquarianism being condemned by Pope Pius XII (in 1949) dismisses St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century)  Antiquarianism would not be directed at him, but at those of the current time who wish to go back to what was practiced before. As Bishop Athanasius Schneider articles here very well, this is against growing .. against what the Holy Spirit inspired early on in the Church in both the East & West 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jii6NCfTW68

 

 

To conclude my thoughts on this though, I would like to apologize and state clearly that no Carmel that receives Holy Communion on the hand is doing anything wrong/disobedient, etc. The Church allows this.

 

As ToJesusMyHeart said however this is a matter of great importance to some people (like myself). I will say in brief that my strong feelings about this stem especially from having grown up not knowing about the Real Presence/not being taught this at all in CCD .. and all that goes with that (leaving my faith which I never knew for a while, trying to find the truth elsewhere, etc.)

 

I think the issue of crumbs falling to the floor/remaining on our hands/not receiving on the hand as we should if we choose that option is a very big deal .. this is God, this is our Faith. 

 

another well done video (along with this one already mentioned .. part 2) from Gabriel that reiterates this ..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egkp1tYrpBk

 

Edited December 19, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[KnightofChrist]

This has all happened before it will all happened again.

[Chiquitunga]

This has all happened before it will all happened again.

 

just wondering  .. what do you mean by that? that this has all happened in PM before (debating to no end) or receiving Holy Communion in the hand?

 

the main reason I'm moving this here now is because I wish to post something entirely different in the OCD nuns thread, but don't want to see the debate start up again 

Edited December 19, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[Noel's angel]

Tonight my youth group was in the Church, and an adult walked up to another kid in the pew because she saw him playing with something. Thinking it was a cell phone, she approached him to take it away. But, it wasn't a cell phone- it was a host. She asked him to hand it over, and at first he refused. She asked where he found it (he didn't attend Mass this evening) and he said it was wedged inside a misselette. Finally, the adult took the host from the teen and consumed our Lord. We'll be telling our Pastor what happened, just so he knows. I think this is a prime example of why receiving on the tongue should be preferred, in my opinion.

 

Not really. The young man could have received on the tongue and taken the Host out of his mouth. Then the adult would have had to consume a Host that had been in someone else's mouth. Ick.

 

Also, this whole tongue vs mouth thing is a non-issue, and we don't need one thread on Phatmass on it, never mind the dozens we have had.

[Chiquitunga]

Okay, conversation successfully moved! Yes, we've had dozens of threads on this, but most of them are archived. I wanted to put this somewhere ... and since this is Debate Table ... I hardly ever visit this place! maybe once every few months  :tomato:

 

[KnightofChrist]

just wondering .. what do you mean by that? that this has all happened in PM before (debating to no end) or receiving Holy Communion in the hand?

the main reason I'm moving this here now is because I wish to post something entirely different in the OCD nuns thread, but don't want to see the debate start up again

Yes, and I understand your reasoning. I will say this much about it, bishops have no authority to deny the faithful who are in the state of grace their right to receive communion on the tongue. Not even if for the flu.

[Chiquitunga]

Yes, and I understand your reasoning. I will say this much about it, bishops have no authority to deny the faithful who are in the state of grace their right to receive communion on the tongue. Not even if for the flu.

 

Yep! Totally in favor of that :like: Thanks for re-articulating 

 

p.s. I'm still editing my post here to let you know, http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/111302-communion-in-hand-or-on-tounge-is-there-any-debate/?p=2525718

Edited December 19, 2012 by Chiquitunga