Hand Communion: A Critical Analysis

[CatholicCrusader]

I am new, and I think I originally posted this in the wrong forum (I didn't need an ANSWER to this, I was rather looking for a forum to present the reason we should all receive Communion the way the Church teaches). I hope this doesn't constitute as a debate, but I think that I originally did not put it in the correct category. (It is not really a question for a Priest or anyone.) Here is where I think I should have put my post the first time. It is as follows:
First my question will be what purpose whatsoever does Communion in the hand serve? What benefit does ANYONE get from receiving Communion in the hand as opposed to on the tongue? I would very boldly and confidently state that absolutely nothing is earned in any way from receiving Communion in the hand, yet Infinity Itself is lost. If a person believes in the Real Presence of Our Lord in Communion (which ALL Catholics are obliged to do, as well as it is clear from the Bible, Tradition, etc.), then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to treat God Himself, the Almighty Creator of the Universe with such irreverence and carelessness to allow Him to possibly be dropped completely or for the crumbs of the Sacred Host to be spilled (whether visible or invisible). There was a study done by a man with his son (both of whom were very much against Communion in the hand). He took the same hosts used by churches before they were consecrated in order to do to the study. He placed about 80 hosts in the boy's hand, being especially careful not to spill any crumbs (the man, acting as the Priest, kept his fingers together in order to not drop any additional crumbs). After the study the amount of crumbs on the ground and on the boys hand that were visible themselves were too much to count! They then took out a black light to pick up the white crumbs, and the entire ground almost under the boy was completely white, as well as his hand from the visible and invisible crumbs. There is a HUGE problem here. If even just one person receives Communion in the hand (excluding the Priest who does so over the altar and the Sacred Vessels, which can catch any crumbs that fall, and can be consumed with the Consecrated Wine), it is clear that Our Lord will be on the ground, to be TRAMPLED (!) by those other Faithful who wish to receive Communion. It is extremely sad to think of this, for the Church teaches that absolutely ALL of the bread and ALL of the wine become COMPLETELY the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord. That means even the smallest invisible crumb of the Sacred Host to the naked eye and the slightest drop of the Consecrated Wine are fully Our Lord just as much as the large Host which is consumed by the Priest. It would be the same for us to take the Sacred Host from the Priest, place it on the ground, and then all come up and trample Him under foot as we receive Communion. It is a very sad state to think of what is happening in our churches, especially those with carpet! Our Lord could fall and be stuck in the carpet for weeks (if not vacuumed up to be now stored in a VACUUM of all places) to be trampled week after week after week. Not only this, but to think that we are in any way worthy to even touch for a second Our Blessed Lord is a very, very prideful thing indeed. Anyone who has humility at all knows that this reason is enough (let alone the fact that we are trampling Our Lord under foot). Even further, the Bishops voted a while back (within the last 20 years, I think--certainly no time before 1970) to allow hand Communion. The vote was an OVERWHELMING, "NO" (well over 75% of the Bishops said no), yet the abuse of this was so bad (Priests who did it against the Church law), that the Church (wrongly) allowed for Communion in the hand. If we changed every rule because it were being broken (to make it so that the offenders were no longer sinning) we would not even believe in the Real Presence, for studies show that over half of Catholics don't even believe anymore! What if that was the new "discipline" of the Church?! The last reason I have saved because it is the best. It also happens the most infrequently, and that is why it is also last on the list. Someone on another popular website with forums for Catholic youth (lifeteen.com)—an organization that has consistently censored my posts because of their orthodoxy and an organization which I left a while ago due to their sacrilegious treatment of the Holy Mass and the Faith—on that website it explained about an occurrence in which satanic kids went to Mass, took Communion, and then put it in their pockets or whatever (which is so evil in itself), and then proceeded to BURN Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to BURN THE EUCHARIST! How can we let this happen?? If we required Communion on the tongue this kind of stuff would never be able to happen, for no one would be able to take the Blessed Sacrament out of his mouth while right in front of everyone. He would have to wait, and by that time, it would be too late to be able to try to desecrate (which is done merely by receiving in the hand). Just ONE instance of a Eucharistic sacrilege should be MORE than enough for ANYONE to oppose such a practice. Just think practically about this. It is clear there is no benefit whatever (certainly not so great as to neglect these problems I have listed) to merit the allowance of Communion in the hand. I challenge anyone to make even one reason as valid as these, for if no one can, then I would call each and every person who reads this to begin to receive Communion on the tongue and to make all others know of this practice by which Our Lord is being dropped and trampled in almost every one of our churches! I don't mind if you copy and print this or whatever you want to get the message out, but I truly call each and everyone of you to do so, for if we all truly believe in the Real Presence, we cannot allow this to go on. If we do not do something, others (and ourselves) will be trampling Our Lord in our churches. God bless you. Make the right decision.

[phatcatholic]

catholic crusader,

this board is mainly for inquiring about the Catholic faith, explaining how to defend it to others, and providing resources for each other that will aid in an increase of knowledge and awareness about the Church. your post, althought somewhat forceful, is worthwhile for informational purposes. indeed, anyone interested in the more traditional take on this issue would want to read your comments.

however, i would remind the pham that if anyone wishes to give a point-by-point critique of this post, or to express a competing sentiment, that a new thread be made in the debate table.

generally, posts written w/ an informational or dydactic purpose are welcomed here, whereas posts written to express or defend an opinion are more at home in the debate board.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[popestpiusx]

I'm confused.

Edited March 24, 2004 by popestpiusx

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 23 2004, 06:49 PM'] I'm confused. [/quote]
why the confusion?

[Jake Huether]

[quote]I am new, [/quote]


Well welcome to the pham. I hope you stick around and contribute to the phorum!


[quote]First my question will be what purpose whatsoever does Communion in the hand serve? What benefit does ANYONE get from receiving Communion in the hand as opposed to on the tongue? [/quote]


Although, I admit, I recieve on the tongue, I must defend those that have the right to recieve it on the hand.

Just one of the reasons I can think of off the top of my head is for health purposes. We actually, earlier in the year, were mandated by our Bishop to recieve on the hand due to the fact that inevitably in distributing Communion on the tongue the Priest every so often touches the tongue and might distribute germs to the next person.

More importantly, though, I think, is that the Apostles themselves from what we know were handed Communion.

We must understand that this is a discipline matter. It isn't an article of faith (the distribution method that is - not the fact that this is our Lord and Savior's Body and Blood). It doesn't matter how it get's into our mouth, so long as it get's there. Christ said, "unless one eats of the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drinks His Blood, he has no life in him." Christ did not say, "you must recieve my Body and Blood on your tongue" from the hands of My Apostles.





[quote]I would very boldly and confidently state that absolutely nothing is earned in any way from receiving Communion in the hand, yet Infinity Itself is lost. [/quote]


And I would question how "Infinitiy Itself is lost". Are our mouths any cleaner than our hands? If Christ is brought to our mouths by the hands of a Priest or by our own hands, what does it matter?

[quote]
If a person believes in the Real Presence of Our Lord in Communion (which ALL Catholics are obliged to do, as well as it is clear from the Bible, Tradition, etc.), then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to treat God Himself, the Almighty Creator of the Universe with such irreverence and carelessness to allow Him to possibly be dropped completely or for the crumbs of the Sacred Host to be spilled (whether visible or invisible). [/quote]


You are absolutely correct. Although, I fail to see how recieving Christ in the hand and immediatly consuming Him would somehow increase the possibility of dropping Him. The odds actually seem greater, logically, when recieving on the tongue, due to the coordination between another hand and your mouth.



[quote]There was a study done by a man with his son (both of whom were very much against Communion in the hand). He took the same hosts used by churches before they were consecrated in order to do to the study. He placed about 80 hosts in the boy's hand, being especially careful not to spill any crumbs (the man, acting as the Priest, kept his fingers together in order to not drop any additional crumbs). After the study the amount of crumbs on the ground and on the boys hand that were visible themselves were too much to count! They then took out a black light to pick up the white crumbs, and the entire ground almost under the boy was completely white, as well as his hand from the visible and invisible crumbs. There is a HUGE problem here. [/quote]


In order for this study to be accurate, then there MUST be a control. What was the result of the man placing the host in the boys mouth directly? To what can we compare these results? I can't believe that in the extra step between the boys hand and his mouth there was much "crumb" spilling. Seriously, I just can't immagine, unless the boy was eating it like a barbarian, that this could be any different than recieving on the tongue directly.






[quote]If even just one person receives Communion in the hand (excluding the Priest who does so over the altar and the Sacred Vessels, which can catch any crumbs that fall, and can be consumed with the Consecrated Wine), it is clear that Our Lord will be on the ground, to be TRAMPLED (!) by those other Faithful who wish to receive Communion. [/quote]


Again, without evidence that there are crumbs when recieving on the tongue, this study is not founded. And the results for recieving on the tongue might very well be just as appoling.




[quote]Not only this, but to think that we are in any way worthy to even touch for a second Our Blessed Lord is a very, very prideful thing indeed. [/quote]


We touch him with our tongue. And He commanded this. Peter wasn't worthy to touch him, but Christ washed his feet. It isn't prideful. Pride would be not listening to the Church. And as far as I know, the Church has okayed hand reception.



[quote]Anyone who has humility at all knows that this reason is enough (let alone the fact that we are trampling Our Lord under foot). Even further, the Bishops voted a while back (within the last 20 years, I think--certainly no time before 1970) to allow hand Communion. The vote was an OVERWHELMING, "NO" (well over 75% of the Bishops said no), yet the abuse of this was so bad (Priests who did it against the Church law), that the Church (wrongly) allowed for Communion in the hand. If we changed every rule because it were being broken (to make it so that the offenders were no longer sinning) we would not even believe in the Real Presence, for studies show that over half of Catholics don't even believe anymore! What if that was the new "discipline" of the Church?! [/quote]


That's just it. The REAL PRESENTS is a Dogma. The method of reception of Christ, is discipline. Discipline can change. Dogma can't.


[quote]The last reason I have saved because it is the best. It also happens the most infrequently, and that is why it is also last on the list. Someone on another popular website with forums for Catholic youth (lifeteen.com)—an organization that has consistently censored my posts because of their orthodoxy and an organization which I left a while ago due to their sacrilegious treatment of the Holy Mass and the Faith—on that website it explained about an occurrence in which satanic kids went to Mass, took Communion, and then put it in their pockets or whatever (which is so evil in itself), and then proceeded to BURN Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to BURN THE EUCHARIST! How can we let this happen?? If we required Communion on the tongue this kind of stuff would never be able to happen, for no one would be able to take the Blessed Sacrament out of his mouth while right in front of everyone. [/quote]


It is the same thing. One can recieve on the tongue and later take it out. The Host doesn't dissolve that rappidly. If there's a will there's a way. The Priest should tell the person who recieves it on the hand to consume Christ immediatly anyway.

And beyond this, anyone who is in mortal sin desecrates the Eucharsit by recieving it anyway.




Asside from these points though, I do agree that we need to have a revival in understanding and belief in the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist. And an increase in devotion and love for Him.

I admire your ferver for Love of Christ. But I would call you not to think that you are, as the saying goes, "more Catholic than the Pope". The Church cannot error in Teachings on Faith and Morals. And so have faith in Her Teachings. If reception in the hands is not your "calling" than that is fine. But you cannot make a judgement on one's intent when they recieve in the hand. It is prideful to think that because you recieve on the tongue, you are better disposed to "touch" our Lord. We should know in humility that Christ WANTS us to touch Him. Had Peter been TOO humble to let Christ wash his feet, he would not have been let into heaven.


God bless you. And please continue to contribute to this phorum.

[CatholicCrusader]

I'll start from the bottom of your post to the top because some of the points you made at the top cannot be answered before first addressing those made toward the end. First, you said:

[quote]We touch him with our tongue. And He commanded this. Peter wasn't worthy to touch him, but Christ washed his feet. It isn't prideful. Pride would be not listening to the Church. And as far as I know, the Church has okayed hand reception.[/quote]

That's the thing. Reception of the Eucharist in the hand is a privelege that has long been reseved to the Priest who is celebrating Mass. This new idea is also degrading the fact that a Priest has authority and a higher calling than a layman. Certainly, since you used the term, no one is "more Catholic than the Pope", for he is the pinacle of the Church, the Vicar of Christ (even if I don't agree with everything he does, that is, his fallible actions and opinions). Therefore, it follows that this authority would descend from the ranks. First and foremost the Pope, down through Bishops to the Priest, and FINALLY to the laymen. The laymen are not in any way equals to the Priest, who offers the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord crucified on Calvary. (St. Paul, "I preach Christ crucified".) Therefore, this heirarchial link, this privelege of the ordained is destroyed by this notion that we can all receive in the hand.

[quote]That's just it. The REAL PRESENTS is a Dogma. The method of reception of Christ, is discipline. Discipline can change. Dogma can't.[/quote]

I am very aware of that. That is why I know I can disagree with hand Communion and still not be a schismatic because hand Communion is not an infallible teaching; it is a discipline, a discipline that is in dire need of change.

[quote]Again, without evidence that there are crumbs when recieving on the tongue, this study is not founded. And the results for recieving on the tongue might very well be just as appoling.
[/quote]

I can tell you first-hand that receiving on the tongue yields absolutely no or nearly no crumbs. I am an altar boy at the Traditional Latin Mass here in Atlanta (Mableton, to be exact). At the Traditional Mass (approved by Ecclesia Dei of Pope John Paul II), the altar boy holds a paten under each communicants chin as each kneels at the Communion rail. This paten is covered with a "cupped hand" while the boy walks to ensure that none of the crumbs should spill off the paten (even though it is probably impossible for most because of how the paten is made with a slant toward the middle). This paten is then taken, after all have received, by the Priest to be purified. The paten is brushed lightly to knock any crumbs into the Chalice by the Priest. The paten is always kept level to avoid spilling any crumbs (even invisible). I have never myself been able to see a visible crumb on the paten and I have served very many Masses. Further, this is why even if crumbs were spilled by Communion on the tongue (which they are not), then the paten would be able to catch any crumbs. Therefore, by having Communion of the tongue (especially in the Traditional Latin Mass), Our Lord CANNOT be spilled so long as the Priest and altar boy perfrom their duties correctly.

[quote]You are absolutely correct. Although, I fail to see how recieving Christ in the hand and immediatly consuming Him would somehow increase the possibility of dropping Him. The odds actually seem greater, logically, when recieving on the tongue, due to the coordination between another hand and your mouth.
[/quote]

Again, the paten would serve this purpose to make sure the Sacred Host is not dropped. Further, I have served many Masses, as I stated, and not once have I ever had to catch a Host on the paten. As long as the Priest is careful, this is not a necessity. Most New Mass Priests, however, either don't believe in the Real Presence or don't act like it (trying to get Communion over with as soon as possible without care if they are being unduly negligent with the Sacred Hosts).

[quote]And I would question how "Infinitiy Itself is lost". Are our mouths any cleaner than our hands? If Christ is brought to our mouths by the hands of a Priest or by our own hands, what does it matter?
[/quote]

Yes, our mouths are cleaner than our hands; however this has no bearing as to what message I was attempting to portray. First, as I stated, a Priest has consecrated hands, hands that are greater than our mere laymen hands. Secondly, it matters whether the Blessed Sacrament is spilled, which, I think I have proved is not done in Communion on the tongue, but is done in the hand.

I think that it is clear that CERTAINLY there is at least MORE of a risk by receiving in the hand (I would say it is a risk that is infinitely more) than receiving on the tongue. It is clear that it IS prideful to make oneself as great as a Priest when the Church teaches that the possitively best vocation is to the Priesthood, not to the married life, not even to the religious life, only to the Priesthood, following in Our Lord's footsteps. I hope you see how dangerous this parctice of hand Communion is to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the belief of the Real Presence. God bless!

[phatcatholic]

i am closing this thread b/c it is turning into a debate.