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

[Chiquitunga]

okay sincere question

Graciela: 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

Was it a magisterial decision the Church made to allow Holy Communion again in the hand? maybe a Church Scholar can chime in here.  I was under the impression that it was practiced in Germany and France "for years" (quoting a priest's email) before it was allowed by the Church... was that a "magisterial decision" that was made?

 

I will also ask this priest ..  For the record though, again, I know it is definitely allowed by the Church today (though not all dioceses I don't believe) and that it is considered an "indult"

 

 

p.s. sorry, I seriously do not wish to wear any of you out by bringing up this topic :sorry:  again, I mainly just want to remove it from VS .. thanks!

Edited December 19, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[Basilisa Marie]

Receiving in the hand is legit.  Receiving on the tongue is legit.  While many people have their particular preferences, neither is inherently holier than another.  Anyone who denies any of this is wrong. 

 

Whooo end of debate? :) 

[KnightofChrist]

The two ways of receiving are not truly equal, just to be clear. In that one is a universal right, the way the Church asks us to receive. The other in an indult, a way the Church temporary allows some to receive.

Edited December 19, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

I believe preference must be given to reception on the tongue. I hope the indult will be rescinded in coming decades.

[Not The Philosopher]

On the tongue. Preferably with rails. Unless it looks like the Priest has shaky hands and there's no patens.

[KnightofChrist]

I believe preference must be given to reception on the tongue. I hope the indult will be rescinded in coming decades.

We should put what the Church asks of us above our personal preferences, even if our preference is allowed.

[Basilisa Marie]

The two ways of receiving are not truly equal, just to be clear. In that one is a universal right, the way the Church asks us to receive. The other in an indult, a way the Church temporary allows some to receive.

 

But that doesn't matter.  I'm speaking for the US, but hand vs tongue truly does not matter.  Some people prefer one over another, and that's fine.  One can even encourage to receive in one posture to help inspire a particular spiritual disposition in an individual person.  But no one can imply that one receiving posture is holier than another.  It's not true.  

[ToJesusMyHeart]

The concern for me is: What about the crumbs of our Lord which may fall to the ground? They (the crumbs of the Eucharist) do not cease to be the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ once they fall out of our hands, correct?

 

Should crumbs of the Savior ever be on the ground? 

 

How do we remedy this?

The two ways of receiving are not truly equal, just to be clear. In that one is a universal right, the way the Church asks us to receive. The other in an indult, a way the Church temporary allows some to receive.

 

I believe preference must be given to reception on the tongue. I hope the indult will be rescinded in coming decades.

 

Me too. Pope Benedict has clearly articulated his opinions on the matter. I wonder why we wouldn't want to follow the preferences of our Holy Father?

 

On the tongue. Preferably with rails. Unless it looks like the Priest has shaky hands and there's no patens.

 

Yes. One time there was a very old priest with very shaky hands, and I was terrified that he wouldn't be able to put Jesus in my mouth, so I let the priest put Jesus in my hands, and tried my absolute best to make sure no crumbs were left behind. There was no paten, which is a shame.

 

We should put what the Church asks of us (tongue, kneeling) above our personal preferences, even if our preference is allowed.

 

Amen.

[KnightofChrist]

It matters and it is important that the Church clearly asks the faithful and prefers the faithful to receive on the tongue. This is important and it most certainly matters, because it is what the Church wants. Who is more holier than others is known only to God. But Mother Church clearly would prefer it if the faithful who are physically capable to receive our Blessed Lord according to the universal right. It is she who says this way shows more reference.

[KnightofChrist]

If you (anyone) don't believe me...

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

[Hubertus]

But that doesn't matter.  I'm speaking for the US, but hand vs tongue truly does not matter.  Some people prefer one over another, and that's fine.  One can even encourage to receive in one posture to help inspire a particular spiritual disposition in an individual person.  But no one can imply that one receiving posture is holier than another.  It's not true.  

We should not judge anyone for receiving in the hand.. It is permitted. But I really do believe that one is better than the other.

 

Pope Paul VI said,

"A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

 

One is "based on a most ancient and venerable tradition." The other carries the dangers listed above.

 

The concern for me is: What about the crumbs of our Lord which may fall to the ground? They (the crumbs of the Eucharist) do not cease to be the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ once they fall out of our hands, correct?

 

Should crumbs of the Savior ever be on the ground? 

And it happens a lot more than we realize.. After I started looking for crumbs in my hand, I started noticing them almost every time I went to Communion.

[Katiebobatie94]

if its a priest, deacon or religious: i recieve on the tongue

if it is an extraordinary eucharistic minister i recieve in the hand

 

honestly, idk why i do it like that......i have since the time i was little though

[Katiebobatie94]

if its a priest, deacon or religious: i recieve on the tongue

if it is an extraordinary eucharistic minister i recieve in the hand

 

honestly, idk why i do it like that......i have since the time i was little though

[ToJesusMyHeart]

We should not judge anyone for receiving in the hand.. It is permitted. But I really do believe that one is better than the other.

 

Pope Paul VI said,

"A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

 

One is "based on a most ancient and venerable tradition." The other carries the dangers listed above.

 

And those dangers have indeed occurred many times.

 

And it happens a lot more than we realize.. After I started looking for crumbs in my hand, I started noticing them almost every time I went to Communion.

 

Terrifying!

[Basilisa Marie]

If the Church was serious about asking people to receive on the tongue, the Church would disallow receiving in the hand. 

 

And like I've said, many people have personal preferences for one or another, and good reasons for those preferences.  But as of right now, it's inaccurate to imply that receiving in a particular way is what the Church asks of us.   If one's bishop asks his flock to receive in a particular way, we should obey him.  Otherwise, the official position of the Church is that both are fine.