Should I not be receiving Communion in the hand?

[PhuturePriest]

Keep in mind particles can still drop when receiving on the tongue, and in my experience I've had more issues with the host almost being dropped whilst receiving on the tongue than the hand ( and I've especially had a lot of practical issues when it comes to intinction, leading me to dislike the practice as a whole, but that's an entirely different issue). All the particle debate really points to is why we need to use patins rather than why we need to receive on the tongue. If falling particles are the issue, all we need is to make hosts which are more cohesive, and make trash bin sized patins that will catch all particles that fall anyway. If falling particles are what we center the debate on, it simply boils down to how to make particles not fall off the host.

If we're going to debate posture during reception, it must center around which position is most objectively reverent. And once we have found that, if there should be exceptions to the rule.

[Basilisa Marie]

 

Why not use something like this?

If we're really concerned with every tiniest particle, why not vacuum seal the Eucharist?  Use chiclet hosts? 

Why not use one of those contraptions to squirt the Precious Blood directly into our mouths so that there's even less of a chance of anything getting anywhere except our mouths? I'm sure we could coat the inside with gold. 

I'm being a bit over the top but honestly, where do you think we need to draw the line? Does the donut you have right after Mass offend Jesus because you're still digesting him in your stomach? Why not just take the agape meal theology out of the Eucharist entirely? If we're so scrupulous with every teeniest particle to the point where we shame people with drawings of people stomping over the crucified Lord then honestly why not just go back to ocular communion for the faithful. 

Proper care and reverence need to be taken and in many places aren't taken but GIVE ME A BREAK.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Basilisa Marie

[Gabriela]

9 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think it's supposed to be disturbing. Is it more disturbing of any other imagery of Christ crucified? I don't think the image is irreverent as much as it's commenting on irreverence.

 

2 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

Thank you for understanding why I posted it. When a particle of the Eucharist falls to the ground the above picture is what is really happening. I think the picture shows why the method of receiving should not be up to our own feelings, but rather take into account Who it is we are receiving and how we treat Him.

 

I totally get the message of the picture and why you posted it, Not A Real Name. It's just so disturbing that I find it really painful to look at.

[Not A Real Name]

2 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

 

Why not use something like this?

 

If we're really concerned with every tiniest particle, why not vacuum seal the Eucharist?  Use chiclet hosts? 

Why not use one of these contraptions to squirt the Precious Blood directly into our mouths so that there's even less of a chance of anything getting anywhere except our mouths? I'm sure we could coat the inside with gold. 

I'm being a bit over the top but honestly, where do you think we need to draw the line? Does the donut you have right after Mass offend Jesus because you're still digesting him in your stomach? Why not just take the agape meal theology out of the Eucharist entirely? If we're so scrupulous with every teeniest particle to the point where we shame people with drawings of people stomping over the crucified Lord then honestly why not just go back to ocular communion for the faithful. 

Proper care and reverence need to be taken and in many places aren't taken but GIVE ME A BREAK.

I don't understand why you're being like this? What I've mentioned is not over the top and neither is my concern for dropping particles of the Eucharist. I find it funny that you try to paint my concern as being extreme or of a scrupulous nature, even when you yourself finish your rant with- "Proper care and reverence need to be taken and in many places aren't taken"- which is the sum of what I'm saying.  Is it because you end with a vague statement about proper care and reverence which is why you're not seen as extreme? What is proper care and reverence to you? To me, if communion in the hand is to be done, would mean proper care should be the use of a paten under the communicant's hands and that the communicant should check for particles to ensure, to the best of their ability, that nothing is lost.  For communion on the tongue I also believe the paten should be used and place under the communicant's chin to ensure no particles are lost.  Sound extreme to you?

[Gabriela]

17 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

If we're so scrupulous with every teeniest particle to the point where we shame people with drawings of people stomping over the crucified Lord then honestly why not just go back to ocular communion for the faithful.

I really hope you're not saying I was shaming anyone.

[Basilisa Marie]

Just now, Not A Real Name said:

To me, if communion in the hand is to be done, would mean proper care should be the use of a paten under the communicant's hands and that the communicant should check for particles to ensure, to the best of their ability, that nothing is lost.  For communion on the tongue I also believe the paten should be used and place under the communicant's chin to ensure no particles are lost.  Sound extreme to you?

What you say here isn't extreme, it's reasonable. The drawing makes you sound more extreme.  

[Not A Real Name]

7 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I really hope you're not saying I was shaming anyone.

She's addressing her remarks to me. She wants to paint me as an extremist or bully because my views on the lack of reverence and care I beleive is shown to our Eucharist Lord in the current way most recive Him in their hands.  However, the above picture though shouldn't be shaming anyone who is doing all they can to ensure proper care and reverence be shown to Christ when the recieve Him, whether receiving in the hand or on the tongue.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[Basilisa Marie]

5 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I really hope you're not saying I was shaming anyone.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the drawing is obviously propaganda against receiving communion in the hand. Look at the pool of blood by the priest's feet. It's mean to scare people into receiving a certain way. 

[Not A Real Name]

1 minute ago, Basilisa Marie said:

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the drawing is obviously propaganda against receiving communion in the hand. Look at the pool of blood by the priest's feet. It's mean to scare people into receiving a certain way. 

It's meant to draw attention to what is happening when all of us are careless with communion in the hand. There is no paten present and no care taken, by the priest nor the communicant, to reduce the risk of Christ being dropped all over the place. This is a serious issue and I feel the picture shows the seriousness.  

[Nihil Obstat]

On 4/3/2016, 11:20:48, Nihil Obstat said:

 I can see this thread deteriorating if I get involved, so I will not. 

Whoops.  Someone convinced me otherwise.

[Archaeology cat]

The only time our priest directs a person to receive in one way or the other is to say that if you don't have both hands free (say, because of holding a child), you should receive on the tongue. I prefer receiving on the tongue, personally. I've only had an issue with a priest dropping it once (older priest, and altar server didn't have the paten under me), so of course I immediately scooped up the Host and consumed Him. I usually don't receive from the Chalice because I've had a child bump my arm and cause some of the Precious Blood to spill before.  I knew what to do, so all ended up OK, but still. 

[Ice_nine]

If we're talking about particles of a microscopic nature I would assume, no matter how careful you might be and no matter which way you recieve, particles of the Eucharist will land on the floor/clothes/skin etc. It's a consequence of entering our physical world. I'm sure God was aware of this, after all Christ became man to die a horrible, bloody death. If some particles accidentally wind up where they should not be, I'm sure it's more akin to injuring Christ in an accidental way (like maybe stepping on his feet on accident) rather than trampling over his dying body.

[Nihil Obstat]

11 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

If we're talking about particles of a microscopic nature I would assume, no matter how careful you might be and no matter which way you recieve, particles of the Eucharist will land on the floor/clothes/skin etc. It's a consequence of entering our physical world. I'm sure God was aware of this, after all Christ became man to die a horrible, bloody death. If some particles accidentally wind up where they should not be, I'm sure it's more akin to injuring Christ in an accidental way (like maybe stepping on his feet on accident) rather than trampling over his dying body.

If I am not mistaken, we consider the species of bread to be undermined at the point where it can no longer be distinguished with the naked eye. If and when the species does not obtain, it is no longer the Eucharistic host.

On that note, there is no reason whatsoever that the paten should not be used everywhere and at all times during distribution of Communion. It has both practical and symbolic/theological meaning, and discarding it has no positive effects at all.

[Ice_nine]

15 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If I am not mistaken, we consider the species of bread to be undermined at the point where it can no longer be distinguished with the naked eye. If and when the species does not obtain, it is no longer the Eucharistic host.

On that note, there is no reason whatsoever that the paten should not be used everywhere and at all times during distribution of Communion. It has both practical and symbolic/theological meaning, and discarding it has no positive effects at all.

well I've heard so long as the host retains the appearance of bread then it is still the Eucharist. I'm not sure. If a particle of dust, for example, settles small falls to the ground you may not be able to see it standing up, but maybe you could if you got on your hands and knees and really looked.

[Seven77]

16 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

I don't understand how receiving communion should be up to how we feel. Shouldn't we be concerned about our Eucharistic Lord and what happens to Him? I've never seen one Catholic able to show that communion in the hand gives less risk of dropping our Eucharistic Lord than communion on the tongue.  Is how we feel more important than protecting Christ? 

 

 While I would tend to agree with what he said in the video, dude was really obnoxious and irritating to listen to.

About this topic I say that would say that yes receiving on the hand is permitted but that seems like a bare minimum thing to me--- and why should we settle on on a bare minimum? Actually, the more I think about this in particular, I don't see why anyone should receive on the hand unless they have some kind of serious reason to do so