I don't know if this has been discussed as I only check in here occasionally. À few years ago I stopped receiving Communion on the hand, and only receive it on the tongue, preferably from A priest not an EMU. When covid restrictions came in (in Ireland) I either didn't receive, or I tried to get to Masses where the priest would willingly give on the tongue. Recently I had a change of heart and started to receive on the hand, and then raising my hand to my mouth, not picking up the Host. On another thread about current apparitions in Slovakia OyrLady allegedly said the preferred way to receive is on the tongue. I have myself tied up in knots on this. What do any of us do or think about this?
On the tongue, from a priest or deacon, preferably kneeling where and when possible. Fortunately at my local parish, this is always possible. If my only option is an EMHC or I can’t get to a priest or deacon without creating a distraction, I usually don’t go up for communion.
I had a huge conversion about 25 years ago, and went back to Confession and the Church. After being raised in the 1960s where we covered our heads, received on the tongue and were generally very reverent at Mass, I was nervous to do things the way everyone was now doing it, but decided to try. I felt very uncomfortable receiving in the hand but assumed it was my strict upbringing by the Nuns at the Catholic school. At a huge Mass of over 10,000 people at Holy Hill Wisconsin, celebrating the Relics of St Therese of Lisieux that were at the time displayed there, I was standing with a crowd in the isle and reached out my hand to receive from the priest (like everyone else was) and the young priest looked me in the eye, and dropped the host in my hand, in which I almost dropped it. At that second, I heard an interior voice tell me NEVER to touch Jesus with my hands again. I think it was my Angel, but I was so upset and started to learn as much as I could about the Real Presence in the Eucharist after that. We can NEVER be too reverent when it comes to this Sacrament. I have also seen many abuses in my own parish with people putting it in their pocket after pretending to consume it, and I once saw a lady quickly put the host in her three year old daughter's mouth after they turned away from the Priest. I was sitting in the front pew and she and her daughters giggled very loudly as they pulled this trick, and it was really evil feeling. I reported that to the Deacon, who actually found the incident on the video being taken of the Mass for the shut ins. She was contacted and educated.
Divisive issue for sure. Our Bishop has mandated communion in hand due to covid. I have for years only received our Lord on the tongue. My personal feelings on this is.... am I better off not receiving our Lord at all or receive on hand, which is permitted by those Jesus gave his authority to in His church to allow such a thing? To me this is an easy one, unite with Jesus is number 1 priority. Does Jesus Christ prefer my humble union with Him through this great sacrament of love as a greater benefit to me (and others through me) more than refusing Him due to touching Him first? If my refusal to touch Him means refusal to unite with Him who is being divisive? Those permitting in hand or my own stance on it? Even Pope JP2 said.... to those that receive the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion. How you receive Him spiritually is what is most important from my prayerful thoughts on it. As soon as reception on tongue is permitted again I am back to only that way.
this question remains inconclusive for me because Jesus at the Last Supper broke the bread and distributed it to the disciples ,the biblical passage does not make it clear if they received on their knees or if it was distributed in such a way that they touched the Sacrament, if this was the case, there is still a possibility for each disciple to represent the Sacrament of Holy Orders, so this right of theirs might not apply to the laity.
We either believe Christ gave His authority to the apostles, or we do not. The Church has been clear on this issue. Are we claiming for ourselves the authority He gave to His Bishops? I prefer on the tongue, but I obey the Bishop. If he allows Communion in the hand, who am I to say otherwise? By obeying the Bishops and thier legitimate authority on these matters, we obey Christ.
Unfortunately it’s not as simple as that. https://onepeterfive.com/communion-hand-true-story/ The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed Luisella Scrosati August 11, 2020 5 Comments Don Federico Bortoli is presently the pastor of the parish of Sant’Andrea Apostolo in Acquaviva in the Diocese of San Marino Montefeltro. He is also diocesan chancellor, judicial vicar, and ecclesiastical counselor for the Unione Cristiana Imprenditori Dirigenti (Christian Union of Entrepreneurs and Executives). He is the defender of the bond at the Flaminio Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Bologna. His book, published last February 22, La distribuzione della Comunione sulla mano (The Distribution of Communion In the Hand), is his doctoral dissertation in Canon Law. We interviewed him on this important topic. The key document relative to the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand is the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Memoriale Domini (29 May 1969) (henceforth M.D.), issued at the direction of Paul VI. Essentially, can you tell us how this document originated and what directives it contained? Advertisement - Continue Reading Below The document originated because, in the years immediately following Vatican II, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand became widespread in many countries. This was obviously a liturgical abuse, which put its roots down in those countries where there were already doctrinal problems regarding the Holy Eucharist: Belgium, Holland, France, and Germany. The Holy See, not succeeding in stopping this abuse, decided to consult all the bishops on this question. This decision of Paul VI already allows us to understand the importance of the argument. I say this, because some would maintain that this whole question is only of marginal importance and unimportant. And what resulted from this consultation? The majority of bishops expressed their opposition to the introduction of this practice. M.D. acknowledged the outcome of the consultation and confirmed that the universal norm for receiving Communion is precisely that of receiving it directly on the tongue, giving profound reasons for it. At the same time, it consented that the bishops’ conferences of those places in which the abuse was already occurring would be able to request an indult for Communion in the hand, if the bishops were able to achieve a vote of a two-thirds majority in favor of requesting it. M.D. thus confirmed that the two ways of receiving the Eucharist are not on the same level? Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Absolutely. In my book, I examine the entire text of the Instruction, which when read clearly is understood to say that the traditional and universal discipline of the Church is that of Communion on the tongue, because “it is based on a centuries-old tradition, but especially because it expresses and signifies the reverent respect of the faithful towards the Holy Eucharist.” And furthermore, “it avoids the danger of profaning the Eucharistic species.” The document does not equate the two forms. Communion on the tongue is recommended and considered the most consonant way to receive the Eucharist, while Communion on the hand is permitted, provided that certain precautions are observed, such as checking to see if any fragments of the Host remain on the palm of the hand. The other aspect of the Instruction that you emphasize in your book is the fact that the indult was not meant to be granted to whoever asked for it, but only to those bishops’ conferences in places where there were already verified abuses. Exactly. The request was able to be made only in those situations in which there was already in existence the abuse of receiving Communion on the hand. Where this was not happening, the indult could not be requested. But what actually happened? At the beginning, they followed this criterion; then, almost every diocese requested and obtained the indult, also where there was no necessity for it. Cardinal Knox, who was prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, also acceded to the demands of the other bishops’ conferences. It is a fact that the interpretation of M.D. by Cardinal Knox was not correct. In your book, you note that in January 1977, Paul VI, through (secretary of state) Cardinal Villot, asked Cardinal Knox to give him an assessment of the situation relative to the granting of the indult, to the way it had been put into practice, and also to verify whether, following the granting of the indult, there had been verified abuses and profanations or if there had been a lessening of the devotion of the faithful toward the Holy Eucharist. But Cardinal Knox seemed to greatly minimize the actual problems. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below The popes, first Paul VI and then John Paul II, had grasped the problem, also thanks to the reports of Cardinal Bafile (prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints from 1975 to 1980). Notwithstanding this, Cardinal Knox continued on his course. Paul VI did asked Cardinal Knox not to evaluate the suggestions of Cardinal Bafile, but to think about how to apply them concretely. These suggestions were essentially the suspension of the concession of the new indult – the necessity of remembering that the practice of Commuion in the hand is discouraged by the Church and that, where the indult was not granted, Communion in the hand constituted an abuse. Con’t
Con’t What actually happened, above all beginning with the article published in L’Osservatore Romano by Fr. Annibale Bugnini in 1973, which you mention, is that the new practice was considered to be better, more faithful to the ancient way of receiving the Eucharist. The idea of M.D. was to make the abuse legal where it had not been successfully eliminated, but a catechesis was still required according to the text of the Instruction, a catechesis that would highlight the merits of the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue and the risks being run with the new practice, in primis the dispersion of the fragments of the Host. The catechesis was not supposed to promote Communion in the hand, but in some way to discourage it, without prohibiting it outright. Still today, Communion in the hand is spoken of as the best way, faithful to the early Church and faithful to the liturgical reform. A fundamental point of the book is to show that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not mention it at all. Nor does any of the successive documents speak of it, nor the new Roman Missal, but only Memoriale Domini, which establishes it in terms of an indult. Bugnini’s article certainly gave a direction, but this direction was extraneous to the texts of the Council. After M.D., there were not other explicit documents. What then is the present disposition of the Church relative to the distribution of Communion? Advertisement - Continue Reading Below One noteworthy example is the document, which I include in the appendix, of Bishop Bialasik, bishop of Oruro, which clearly affirms that Communion on the tongue is the universal law of the Church, as M.D. establishes. Thus, Communion on the tongue is the universal law, while Communion in the hand is an indult, an exception. The other fundamental reference, outside M.D., is Redemptionis Sacramentum 92, which speaks of the right of the faithful to receive Communion on the tongue and also kneeling. Also in catechesis, above all that of children, there is a need to teach the proper way to receive the Eucharist, that is, on the tongue. Exactly. It ought to clearly be said that the best way to receive the Eucharist is on the tongue, and if someone wants to receive Communion on the hand, to do so with the greatest attention possible. As a pastor, I clearly cannot prohibit it, but I can discourage it, explain the problems with it, and educate. But it must also be said that the same Redemptionis Sacramentum 91 establishes that “if there is danger of profanation, Holy Communion should not be distributed to the faithful in the hand.” Another aspect you bring to light is the fact that the obtaining of the indult by a bishops’ conference does not thereby obligate any individual bishops to apply it. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below This is another fundamental aspect. The obtaining of the indult on the part of a bishops’ conference does not thereby require its automatic application in each diocese. It is simply the presupposition, based on which a bishop can decide to apply the indult or not. In Italy, what actually happened was the opposite: it was thought that the indult given to the Italian Bishops’ Conference authorized the reception of Communion in the hand in all the dioceses of Italy. But it was not so. Each bishop can decide whether to apply it and in what way. The Bishop of Oruro, for example, issued a decree in January 2016 prohibiting the reception of Communion in the hand in the territory of his diocese. This could be done by each bishop. Also, if we apply logic, without a decree of each bishop declaring the desire to receive the indult obtained by the bishops’ conference, Communion in the hand is not licit. Also Bishop Laise, in Argentina, did not accept the indult. He was accused by other bishops of not being in communion with them; he, however, appealed the matter to the Holy See, which said he was within his rights as bishop. Your book is so valuable because it includes previously unpublished material. Without a doubt, the main and most important contribution of the book is that of making known the unpublished documentation of Fondo Ghiglione, where they describe the dynamics by which Communion in the hand was introduced. It includes letters sent among the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia and reports sent to the Holy See. Above all the largest part of these communications regards those written by Cardinal Domenico Bafile, who was first the nuncio to Germany – thus, he was in one of those places where the abuse was most precocious and took into account all of the problems connected with it – and then prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. In the book I examine his letters sent to Paul VI and John Paul II, which display his great concern over the spread of Communion in the hand and the problems connected with it. They also suggest concrete steps to put into action to address the problem. The great concern of the cardinal is with the dispersion of the fragments of the host, which is almost inevitable with Communion in the hand, and then the fact of the way in which it encourages irreverence toward the Eucharist, as well as the weakening of faith in the Real Presence. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Both Paul VI and John Paul II gave ample credit to the reports of Cardinal Bafile. This is proven by the fact that Pope John Paul II published the letter Dominicae Cenae on February 24, 1980, where he explicitly spoke of “deplorable shortcomings of respect shown towards the Eucharistic species” linked to the practice of Communion in the hand. One month later, John Paul II made the serious and important decision to suspend the concession of new indults, seriously considering the hypothesis of not granting more in the future, even though later, beginning on April 3, 1985, the granting of indults recommenced. Perhaps the possibility of granting indults was then an open door, even though Paul VI clearly expressed the teaching of the Church on the way to receive the Eucharist and even though he had indicated the limitations which were to be followed in the granting of such indults (which were then not respected). In effect, the possibility of the indult was perhaps a weakness. There is one part of the book in which I speak of the role of ecclesiastical authority, where I seek to demonstrate – in hindsight – that the concession of the indult has in some way allowed us to arrive at the situation now evident to everyone. If there had simply been a reception of the position of the majority of bishops that was against the possibility of receiving Communion in the hand, perhaps things would have been different. It is necessary to keep in mind the priority of protecting the Eucharist in the best way possible from the possibility of fragments and from other possible profanations, which are clearly facilitated by the newly permitted way of receiving Communion. John Paul II, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, taught that “there can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery” (n. 61). This affirmation is decisive. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Originally published at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. Originally reprinted at 1P5 on May 8, 2018. Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino. Sent from my iPhone
I have found this to be so. I was a Eucharistic Minister for many, many years and thought to myself that if the Church permits it, who am I to disagree? However my attitude has hardened considerably over the years. This has been brought about by unease and praying about it. I do believe it should only be received on the tongue and while kneeling. A very real concern here is that there really truly is such a thing as Satanists and that do really and truly want to steal the hosts. True Satanists are very often to tell a Consecrated Host from a real one and use this power frequently. They steal them like crazy everywhere they can. This must be prevented at any cost. If people truly believed in the Real Presence they would naturally tend to want it this way. But they do not have the Faith anymore. This is one of the huge, huge difficulties of the 1960's mass. It lends itself to abuses. I do believe one day we will in fact go back to Old Rite. I am not combative about this. I may be wrong as I am about so many things. I just believe this in my heart. The old Liturgy is far, far, far superior. It simply is. The abuses regarding the Eucharist are simply part of this. Another thing is I do believe people are receiving the Eucharist unworthily in a state of Mortal Sin. Again this is horrible. The Old Mass reminded the Faithful constantly in the Liturgy to check themselves to examine consciences regarding this something the 1960's Mass does not do. Another abuse. I repeat the old Liturgy is far, far Superior and some future Pope will restore it. The 1960's Liturgy needs dropped.
I read or heard something about this recently. I don't recall where, otherwise I would post a link. That person said that most likely they would have been standing per the custom for the Passover. I prefer to receive on the tongue when I can but when that's not an option I receive in the hand. I'm never comfortable receiving on the tongue due to a fear carried over from my childhood but showing due reverence to the Lord is more important than my awkwardness.
How so? The onepeter5 article you posted agrees with my stance that Communion on the tongue is prefered, but the Bishop has the authority to allow Communion in the hand... Quote from article... " The document does not equate the two forms. Communion on the tongue is recommended and considered the most consonant way to receive the Eucharist, while Communion on the hand is permitted, provided that certain precautions are observed, such as checking to see if any fragments of the Host remain on the palm of the hand" __________________________ The Bishop makes the call. He has the authority.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/objecting-to-communion-in-the-hand-4911 The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says the following: “160. […] It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The faithful receive Communion kneeling or standing, as established by the episcopal conference. However, when they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that the faithful make appropriate reverence, according to the norms established, before receiving the Sacrament. “161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it. If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is to be followed.”
I think that the issue is not "hand or tongue". The issue is REVERENCE/ADORATION. That is, to express with the whole body language the faith of the soul. Thus, I think that it is most important to receive The Lord kneeling (unless there is a physical/bodily impediment). Second, to "eat His Body" in the spot, without moving away from the place I'm kneeling. Third, make some form of bow -head, hands- adoring the Lord received in my body, there, in the spot, before standing and going back to my pew. Due to the health crisis we are living, though preferring communion in the tongue, it may be an act of charity to receive Him (as explained above) in the form established by the Church: That is: the left hand opened to receive Him, while the right hand, forms a "throne" below the left hand, sustaining it. And once the Sacred Host is deposited on the left hand, take it with the right hand to consume It. I say an act of charity because many people -supposedly "good-fervent-daily communicant-Catholics"- are scared and afraid way beyond reason of people who receive communion in the tongue. I take into account this weakness of character and faith to surrender my preference. It might be also an act of prudence medically speaking /or might not. The Lord looks first at our soul, our intentions, before looking at our body and our actions. And above all, the main issue is a thorough preparation of our conscience -all that "Gospel stuff" about making peace with our enemies, forgive our offenders etc. etc. Sometimes the enemy may be EMHC I "cannot" receive the Lord from. I've done hospital ministry for many years bringing holy communion to beds. It is a very sacred ministry. And the Lord "doesn't mind" to "travel" in my pocket in order to be able to get to His children bedside. Currently we are at war. But the war is much less about "tongue or hand" as it is about conversion of our heart. And we all need to convert -beginning with myself- and stop judging others. I hope I'm not offending anybody. I'm just expressing my point of view.
Receive on the Tongue always. Never receive without kneeling before the Eucharistic Lord. If they insist in chasing you out of the Parish, then faithfully bear that Cross, and offer it up to to the Lord as a Pleasing Sacrifice. It will be Meritorious and Satisfactory, and can help Save Souls - and the Lord will find you another Good Parish where you can kneel for Holy Communion during Holy Mass. If More Catholics did this, Holy Communion on the Tongue would be Universally Restored in no time. Remember Saintly Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: "The Laity will Save the Church". This is one of the ways we can. It's time to come out of laxity and lukewarmness.
For your discernment. Messages on not touching the Holy Eucharist to Valentina Pagagna in Australia: "Valentina is a Roman Catholic in good standing, who has the full support of her Spiritual director and parish priest, Father Valerian Jenko OFM." http://valentina-sydneyseer.com.au/about-valentina-papagna/ 5 Dec 2021 message: " I said to the angel, “I know that Father. He used to be in my church.” I continued to look around when suddenly, at least six ladies appeared at the back of this building, all standing in an aisle. They looked quite young and were dressed all in black, wearing sleeveless dresses, complete with frills on the shoulders. I came close to them and said, “Why are you dressed differently from the others here?” They answered, “For many, many years, we were helping in churches, doing good things. We were Ministers of the Eucharist, and we helped with many other chores that needed to be done in the church. We thought we were doing good things, and we were very proud being Ministers of the Eucharist.” “Now we know we were wrong. The priests and bishops did not tell us that this was all wrong. Instead, they encouraged us, telling us that it was alright. Now that we are here, we know that we should never have touched the Holy Eucharist. Now we are severely punished, that is why we are wearing black. We offended God very much, so deeply. It is so great a sacrilege against our Lord, to hold Him. We do not know how long we will be here.” I said, “Yes, this is a great sacrilege against our Lord. Nobody should touch the Eucharist, only the consecrated hands of the priests and bishops.” This is what our Lord had told me. Then I left with the angel." http://valentina-sydneyseer.com.au/5-december-2021/ Lord Jesus, have mercy on these souls.
After my adult baptism in Germany eleven years ago, I initially joined the Holy Catholic Church in Novus Ordo-parishes, and on the very liberal faction of that. I always received the Lamb of God in the hand back then. Today, I think differently and I attend the Traditional Latin Mass. I think, as laity, we are generally unworthy to touch the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord. Only a Holy Priest should do this with his anointed hands. This coincides with the traditional Catholic understanding and the practice in the Traditional Latin Mass, the most sacred form of the holy liturgy. The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand is a novelty that was introduced around the time of the sad Vatican council, and only as an exception. That it became so widespread is abuse which started in Germany and Holland, the usual culprits (think "St. Gallen Mafia" in today's terms). Our Good Lord appears to have a bleeding heart from the abuse created by receiving Him in the hand. This is evidenced by how the eucharistic miracles of Buenos Aires and Legnica came about.
Yes, I think all of the Holy Apostles were ordained by our Good Shepherd to be, effectively, Bishops under St. Peter as Supreme Pontiff. So they essentially had anointed hands as any Holy Priest does.
Yes, but as you said, communion in the hand is allowed (as an exception). That should not mean it is the preferred option.
I look all the time at people receiving on the hand at the the 1960's Mass as I look , all the time at people receiving on the tongue at the Old Mass. I can only say at the Old Mass I have never ever seen any sign of irreverrence towards the Eucharist at the Old Mass, never not once and I have been going to it from I was a child. On the other hand regarding the 1960's Mass I can only see say I witness it all the time. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. I believe Blessed Catherine Emmerich and other mystics on reporting visions of the Last Supper tells us it was given on the tongue. Any report of mystics receiving the host from angels, it was always on the tongue, never ever on the hand. 'That is: the left hand opened to receive Him, while the right hand, forms a "throne" below the left hand, sustaining it.' I simply don't see people doing this in practice. I simply don't . What really happens is that people take it as they would a piece of popcorn. What really concerns is that nowadays I don't even see them consume it. The goodness knows what they do with it. There have been numerous reports of people especially children dumping the host at thier place of worship or on Church grounds. I was a Eucharistic Minister myself for more years than I can count. I saw all this in practice.
