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

[KnightofChrist]

FYI: There are crumbs even if you receive on the tongue. The only way to prevent crumbs from falling is by use of a paten. So, if your argument for on the tongue is crumbs and you aren't receiving with a paten under your chin, please find a new argument.

Also, props to MIKolbe's post.

Crumbs will fall without the use of a paten, that is true, and most certainly should be used. However the paten is never used for giving communion on the hand. Therefore the chance of crumbs breaking away as the Host is given (when it is in the process of being transferred) is equal, whether one receives on the hand or tongue. But the crumbs that break away when and after the Host is received can still be better protected from falling to the floor by receiving on the tongue ( which by its moisture is naturally sticky, preventing the crumbs from falling away) or licking one's hand or picking up the crumbs with one's tongue. Edited December 21, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Fidei Defensor]

Crumbs will fall without the use of a paten, that is true, and most certainly should be used. However the paten is never used for giving communion on the hand. Therefore the chance of crumbs breaking away as the Host is given (when it is in the process of being transferred) is equal, whether one receives on the hand or tongue. But the crumbs that break away when and after the Host is received can still be better protected from falling to the floor by receiving on the tongue ( which by its moisture is naturally sticky, preventing the crumbs from falling away) or licking one's hand or picking up the crumbs with one's tongue.

 

At my childhood parish the altar boys would always use patens for both those who received on the tongue and those who received in the hand. They had to literally follow the communicants every move until they consumed (granted no one ever walked away until they consumed the host.)

 

Also, let us remember that the bread ceases to hold the real presence when it is no longer recognizable as bread (CCC 1377) — i.e. the tiniest particles that cannot be distinguished as bread DO NOT hold the real presence any longer.  There is no need to obsess about it beyond taking reasonable precaution against desecration of larger crumbs.

[Nihil Obstat]

At my childhood parish the altar boys would always use patens for both those who received on the tongue and those who received in the hand. They had to literally follow the communicants every move until they consumed (granted no one ever walked away until they consumed the host.)

 

Also, let us remember that the bread ceases to hold the real presence when it is no longer recognizable as bread (CCC 1377) — i.e. the tiniest particles that cannot be distinguished as bread DO NOT hold the real presence any longer.  There is no need to obsess about it beyond taking reasonable precaution against desecration of larger crumbs.

 

If I am not mistaken though, we do not have a precise definition of the point at which we consider it as no longer distinguishable as bread. I think it is reasonable, and perhaps safest, to argue that if a particle is visible to the naked eye, it should at least be treated as a consecrated Host.

[Amppax]

Crumbs will fall without the use of a paten, that is true, and most certainly should be used. However the paten is never used for giving communion on the hand.

 

False.  

[KnightofChrist]

So long as a crumb of the Host is visble to the naked eye, and it is clear that the crumb is from a Host it is Jesus Christ. A partical that is so small it can't be viewed with the naked eye wouldn't be Jesus Christ.

[MissScripture]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="KnightofChrist" data-cid="2526048" data-time="1356051682"><p>
Crumbs will fall without the use of a paten, that is true, and most certainly should be used. However the paten is never used for giving communion on the hand. Therefore the chance of crumbs breaking away as the Host is given (when it is in the process of being transferred) is equal, whether one receives on the hand or tongue. But the crumbs that break away when and after the Host is received can still be better protected from falling to the floor by receiving on the tongue ( which by its moisture is naturally sticky, preventing the crumbs from falling away) or licking one's hand or picking up the crumbs with one's tongue.</p></blockquote>

I have seen in at least three different churches the use of a paten for everyone receiving communion, regardless of if it was in the hand or on the tongue.

[KnightofChrist]

I've never seen it used anywhere other than TLM. While it may be used sometimes at Novus Ordo masses it is very rare.

[Fidei Defensor]

If I am not mistaken though, we do not have a precise definition of the point at which we consider it as no longer distinguishable as bread. I think it is reasonable, and perhaps safest, to argue that if a particle is visible to the naked eye, it should at least be treated as a consecrated Host.

 

 

So long as a crumb of the Host is visble to the naked eye, and it is clear that the crumb is from a Host it is Jesus Christ. A partical that is so small it can't be viewed with the naked eye wouldn't be Jesus Christ.

 I didn't mean to say that crumbs didn't hold the real presence, I meant to point out that it is unnecessary to obsess about every single particle. We should be rightly concerned about visible particles, yes. But one needn't worry about things we cannot see.

[Hubertus]

Also, let us remember that the bread ceases to hold the real presence when it is no longer recognizable as bread (CCC 1377) — i.e. the tiniest particles that cannot be distinguished as bread DO NOT hold the real presence any longer.  There is no need to obsess about it beyond taking reasonable precaution against desecration of larger crumbs.

 

"1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ."

 

I think even a small particle still maintains the species. It is still the Body of Christ, or else the priest wouldn't go to such meticulous procedure to ensure that all of them are consumed. The Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist from the Council of Trent also assert that Our Lord is still present "in the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion."

 

Edit: Yeah.. I'd say visibility is a good rule to go by.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2012 by Hubertus

[Fidei Defensor]

Edit: Yeah.. I'd say visibility is a good rule to go by.

 

Agreed.

[KnightofChrist]

I didn't mean to say that crumbs didn't hold the real presence, I meant to point out that it is unnecessary to obsess about every single particle. We should be rightly concerned about visible particles, yes. But one needn't worry about things we cannot see.

I agree. Obsessing over it would be wrong anyway. But there can be a healthy but grave concern about the dangers of crumbs falling underfoot. To which I am sure you and all who love and adore the Blessed Lord would agree.

[Fidei Defensor]

I agree. Obsessing over it would be wrong anyway. But there can be a healthy but grave concern about the dangers of crumbs falling underfoot. To which I am sure you and all who love and adore the Blessed Lord would agree.

 

Indeed.

[Nihil Obstat]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="KnightofChrist" data-cid="2526048" data-time="1356051682"><p>
Crumbs will fall without the use of a paten, that is true, and most certainly should be used. However the paten is never used for giving communion on the hand. Therefore the chance of crumbs breaking away as the Host is given (when it is in the process of being transferred) is equal, whether one receives on the hand or tongue. But the crumbs that break away when and after the Host is received can still be better protected from falling to the floor by receiving on the tongue ( which by its moisture is naturally sticky, preventing the crumbs from falling away) or licking one's hand or picking up the crumbs with one's tongue.</p></blockquote>

I have seen in at least three different churches the use of a paten for everyone receiving communion, regardless of if it was in the hand or on the tongue.

 

 

I've never seen it used anywhere other than TLM. While it may be used sometimes at Novus Ordo masses it is very rare.

 

My experience matches KofC's. But some recent perspective is telling me that my diocese is on the tail-end of good liturgy. :(

 

 I didn't mean to say that crumbs didn't hold the real presence, I meant to point out that it is unnecessary to obsess about every single particle. We should be rightly concerned about visible particles, yes. But one needn't worry about things we cannot see.

In my own anecdotal experience, there is usually at least one or two visible (small, but visible) particles left behind when I receive in the hand, which I do extremely carefully. So I do not want to come off like the publican here - that is not how I mean this - but I do not see people checking their hands afterwards for particles. And I guarantee that there are some there. It worries me, is all. I do not think the average person considers it. Not because they do not care. I am sure most do. But simply because they do not know.

[Basilisa Marie]

I receive in the hand quite often (about 50% of the time) and I have never had particles leftover.  And patens have ALWAYS been used, ESPECIALLY when one is receiving in the hand.  Maybe I'm just lucky, but I'd guess that my experience is typical of someone who regularly attends Novus Ordo.  

 

And as for making receiving on the tongue seem holier, that is EXACTLY the impression someone can get from this thread.  Almost everyone talking about how great it is to receive on the tongue, how receiving in the hand is inferior, calling it an "aberration of tradition"...etc.   Most of us here are talking about our personal preferences, and the good reasons why we have those personal preferences.  But it's not great when we talk about those preferences as if they are some objective, universal fact.   

 

And for what it's worth, I'd be doing the same thing if people were talking about how much better receiving in the hand is, and implying that receiving on the tongue is objectively inferior.  :)   

[KnightofChrist]

I receive in the hand quite often (about 50% of the time) and I have never had particles leftover.

I've conducted the experiment myself, when I couldn't receive from a priest and/or was denied communion on the tongue. I did find particles, clearly visible to even my bad vision. I check every single time, don't find them every time, but enough to be concerned about checking my hand if I do receive on the hand. I've seen the empirical evidence, and a video earlier in the thread also shows clearly recorded empirical evidence that placing a Host on someone's hand can result in some small but visible particles breaking off.

And patens have ALWAYS been used, ESPECIALLY when one is receiving in the hand. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I'd guess that my experience is typical of someone who regularly attends Novus Ordo.

I also regularly, attend Novus Ordo masses, I wanted to go to the TLM every Sunday but the closest one is only once a month and the others are hours away. I've gone to far more Novus Ordo masses at many different parishes than TLM in my life, the only time I have ever seen the patens used was at the TLM. I think it is very good that your parish does! But I do not know if it is as common as you believe.

And as for making receiving on the tongue seem holier, that is EXACTLY the impression someone can get from this thread. Almost everyone talking about how great it is to receive on the tongue, how receiving in the hand is inferior, calling it an "aberration of tradition"...etc. Most of us here are talking about our personal preferences, and the good reasons why we have those personal preferences. But it's not great when we talk about those preferences as if they are some objective, universal fact.

I don't think so, not if people avoid the danger of reading between the lines or trying to read more into what has been said than has actually been said. I have not suggested receiving on the tongue makes one more holy, again God alone knows the hearts of men to judge who is more holy than others. What I have said is that we should (note: not must) follow the universal norm, rather than our personal preferences. Because while she allows us to receive on the hand, the Church has elevated communion on tongue to a special honor, that the indult being such does not have. She has elevated communion on the tongue by making it the universal norm, a pride of place, perfected over thousands of years. Because communion on the tongue is the universal norm of the Church this means it is the Church's preference. That is again very important. We should model our perferences to that of the Church. We of course do not have to follow her preferred way, she does allow another, but we should, because she is the Church and she is wise. I don't believe anyone here is guilty for what you think is being implied. The modern practice of communion on the hand is an aberration with tradition. In two ways, 1) the traditional way of receiving is on the tongue, receiving on the hand is an indult. A indult by definition is a aberration, or diverting from the norm. 2) The ancient practice of communion on the hand differs greatly from the modern way. In the ancient practice the faithful would first wash their hands, women would place a clothe over their hand before receiving, they would receive the Host on the right hand, not the left, and they would make a profound bow and pick up the Host with their mouth and tongue directly from their right hand, without ever picking it up with the other. In this way also the modern practice aberrates or diverts from the ancient practice.

for what it's worth, I'd be doing the same thing if people were talking about how much better receiving in the hand is, and implying that receiving on the tongue is objectively inferior. :)

I would not use the word inferior to describe receiving on the hand. I would say what I have actually said, one has a higher honor in the Church than does the other, one is the universal norm the other is a temporary indult. There is also a good reason why all the popes since Paul VI, including Paul VI have held a higher esteem for the universal norm above the indult. There's a reason why the current Holy Pontiff requests those faithful who receive from him should receive communion following the universal norm.

Sorry for any typos, it's late and I'm typing on my phone. Edited December 21, 2012 by KnightofChrist