Receiving Jesus In The Hand...not A Good Idea

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='20 April 2010 - 06:10 AM' timestamp='1271740245' post='2096594']
I just wanna say that for the sign of peace (if I go to an OF that does it), I usually just respectfully grunt in whoever's direction. It's not social hour. Listen, folks, the point of this desire to reform is to iron out the little acts of self-rightiousness and self-worship in our outward actions. Sign of peace is one. It becomes everyone's "right" to get all chummy with others around. It appears to be our "right" to have laity handle the hosts/chalices. The focus is all "me, me me". I'm all for there being a "ban" or whatever. I also understand certain cases like CatM requires people not to. But most of all, priests have to say something to their flocks. Otherwise, our whining is all for naught.
[/quote]

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='19 April 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1271733119' post='2096541']
Germs yo. Germs.
[/quote]

I receive on the tongue out of reverence, simply because there is no way I could put my hands on the Lord and feel OK about it. I also receive the Blood at my parish, since we are pretty small and always offer both species.

I guess I am delusional, but I don't believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus would make me sick. I have a hard time conceiving that Jesus, in His Infinite Mercy, would permit sickness to be communicated to those who partook in His Supper. I may be naive, but that is why I, a nurse and total germophobe, can readily receive the Blood from a common chalice without even a second thought.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='20 April 2010 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1271741074' post='2096604']
I receive on the tongue out of reverence, simply because there is no way I could put my hands on the Lord and feel OK about it. I also receive the Blood at my parish, since we are pretty small and always offer both species.

I guess I am delusional, but I don't believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus would make me sick. I have a hard time conceiving that Jesus, in His Infinite Mercy, would permit sickness to be communicated to those who partook in His Supper. I may be naive, but that is why I, a nurse and total germophobe, can readily receive the Blood from a common chalice without even a second thought.
[/quote]
Especially since the Eucharist is also a source of great healing, It is Viaticum.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='19 April 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1271741074' post='2096604']
I receive on the tongue out of reverence, simply because there is no way I could put my hands on the Lord and feel OK about it. I also receive the Blood at my parish, since we are pretty small and always offer both species.

I guess I am delusional, but I don't believe that the Body and Blood of Jesus would make me sick. I have a hard time conceiving that Jesus, in His Infinite Mercy, would permit sickness to be communicated to those who partook in His Supper. I may be naive, but that is why I, a nurse and total germophobe, can readily receive the Blood from a common chalice without even a second thought.
[/quote]

Any physical ailments I may receive through communion are more than made up for by the spiritual healing received.

Maybe the physical ailment is my way to spiritual purification and perfection .


I don't receive from the Chalice as I see no need for an EHMC to be distributing it. Maybe if no one received the Precious Blood they would cut back on our EHMC army.


I think the best way to distribute both species is through intinction. This does not require a second minister and hardly slows down the process of distribution. If I were a pastor and my flock called for distribution of the Precious Blood I would do it via intinction. (Edit: Ideally... )

Edited April 20, 2010 by Slappo

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' date='19 April 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1271722370' post='2096482']
While I agree with you, it's important to note that [i]extraordinary[/i] is not meant to refer to circumstances, but rather to distinguish one from the ordinary minister of Holy Communion.
[/quote]
Actually the name "Extraordinary Minister" refers precisely to circumstances that are out of the ordinary in which a member of the lay faithful is temporarily deputed to distribute communion and this was made clear in the instruction [i]Ecclesiae de Mysterio[/i] (article 8, § 2). That said, the habitual use of Extraordinary Ministers is a liturgical abuse, and as such it should be avoided.

[God Conquers]

I receive on the tongue 90% of the time.

I don't in certain circumstances: 1- I've seen someone receive on the tongue in front of me, and the EHMC can't do it as respectfully as they are unaccustomed to it.

2- Short priest or EHMC and there is no altar rail. I am insanely tall, and I have to bend down too far. (not because I'm lazy - but because Jesus might fall off my tongue at that angle)


However, reverence in receiving the Eucharist is not a tongue vs hand thing. It is a heart vs heart thing.

I've seen irreverence on the part of people receiving on the tongue, as well as the hand, and from both priest and EHMC.



As for the video - nice effort, but his attitude is bad, and he's not going to convince someone with endless quotes from Trent... I got bored and I mostly agree with him.


He is right to say that our witness is what is really important.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='20 April 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1271752812' post='2096622']
As for the video - nice effort, but his attitude is bad, and he's not going to convince someone with endless quotes from Trent... I got bored and I mostly agree with him.


He is right to say that our witness is what is really important.[/quote]
+JMJ+
he quoted other documents, but i agree with your point. i thought he was a little funny (as in ha ha funny), but I don't know...jazz it up a little?

[HisChildForever]

I do understand that receiving on the tongue promotes* more reverence and reinforces belief in the Real Presence.

*I use "promotes" because it is an outward sign. We cannot say that an individual who receives on the tongue is more reverent than an individual who receives in the hands because it is not our place to judge.

Speaking in general here:

However, for those of us who do receive on the hands - or at least I am speaking for myself - we are not trying to be irreverent, modern, or stubborn. Yes, some of us are defensive and will react defensively whether we are attacked or perceived to be attacked for the way we receive. A lot of this defensiveness comes from the way we were raised. I have been going to the same parish my entire life and have only been taught to receive in the hands. Basically, I have been conditioned to learn this. Since it is also a valid form of reception, I view this "debate" as unimportant when it clearly is an important issue. In truth, this is just an example of how one person on "the other side" approaches the topic of proper reception of the Eucharist.

Edited April 20, 2010 by HisChildForever

[TotusTuusMaria]

receiving on the tongue also ensures that no particles of Jesus are left on one's hands, wiped on ones' clothes, brushed to the floor, and stomped on.

The beginning of the video reminds me of the story of St. Therese who was cleaning the chapel and found the very tiny crumb-size piece of the consecrated host on the altar cloth. She called all the sisters and they all adored "the crumb" which was Jesus.

Many people allow these same crumbs to just scatter in the air and to the ground and on their clothes etc...

Edited April 20, 2010 by TotusTuusMaria

[Bennn]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='20 April 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1271725923' post='2096506']
Getting a bit judgemental?? Are you qualified to decide people's hearts?
[/quote]


I am sorry it came across that way. I apologise. But when I see the majority of people not even making a sign of reverance before receiving Jesus and then just stick out their hand to Him, it makes me wonder.

[HisChildForever]

When the priest distributes the Host, his fingers are touching the Host. The paten is used to prevent crumbs from getting on the floor if one receives on the tongue. But what about the crumbs on the priest's fingers? How does he ensure that not one crumb falls to the floor?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Bennn' date='20 April 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1271787178' post='2096850']
I am sorry it came across that way. I apologise. But when I see the majority of people not even making a sign of reverance before receiving Jesus and then just stick out their hand to Him, it makes me wonder.
[/quote]

Be careful that your "wonder" does not turn into judgment.

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' date='20 April 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1271787096' post='2096848']
receiving on the tongue also ensures that no particles of Jesus are left on one's hands, wiped on ones' clothes, brushed to the floor, and stomped on.

The beginning of the video reminds me of the story of St. Therese who was cleaning the chapel and found the very tiny crumb-size piece of the consecrated host on the altar cloth. She called all the sisters and they all adored "the crumb" which was Jesus.

Many people allow these same crumbs to just scatter in the air and to the ground and on their clothes etc...
[/quote]

After being a sacristan in the convent and having found particles of Jesus while cleaning altar cloths... that pretty much sealed the deal for me. It put things in a different perspective. I couldn't help but then wonder about what happens beyond the altar cloths, you know? Something (some One) so precious... God Himself come down from heaven... and then perhaps [i]unintentionally [/i]disregarded, "left on one's hands, wiped on ones' clothes, brushed to the floor, and stomped on"...

As someone that entered the Church not even knowing about the option to receive on the tongue (until going to a "Come and See" with the CFRs a few years later)... I guess I just don't understand why the indult was deemed necessary. Does anyone here know? (Now I'm really curious. )

In addition, why is this option commonly (at least in my experience) not mentioned during First Communion or RCIA classes?

As a catechist (after I entered) this was something I always made sure to mention and instruct during my First Communion CCD classes. I was frequently surprised to see how well young children took to it.

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='20 April 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1271791913' post='2096884']
When the priest distributes the Host, his fingers are touching the Host. The paten is used to prevent crumbs from getting on the floor if one receives on the tongue. [b]But what about the crumbs on the priest's fingers? How does he ensure that not one crumb falls to the floor?[/b]
[/quote]

I've been wondering about this as well. Good question.

Wish I knew the answer.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='20 April 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1271791913' post='2096884']
When the priest distributes the Host, his fingers are touching the Host. The paten is used to prevent crumbs from getting on the floor if one receives on the tongue. But what about the crumbs on the priest's fingers? How does he ensure that not one crumb falls to the floor?
[/quote]

The priest used to be required to hold his forefinger and his thumb together after holding the host until he purified his fingers after Holy Communion during the ablutions. The rubric of holding his fingers together is not mentioned for the Novus Ordo, but many priests do still do so, and the ablution of his fingers is still done... or it should be anyway.

Edited April 20, 2010 by zunshynn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' date='19 April 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1271738603' post='2096584']
Even though I have a theology degree and a better understanding (at least bookwise, not necessarily in spiritual practice) of the Eucharist than most in my parish, I refuse to be an EMOHC for the sole purpose that I do not see a need for them in my parish.

We won't have any at my wedding even though there will probably be around three hundred in attendance. We will have two priests though .
[/quote]
I don't know about the average guy in my parish, but I'm more than willing to wait, say... an extra fifteen minutes (and that would be pushing it on the extreme end) at Mass to completely eliminate the role of the EMHC. We usually have seven. I say usually to mean every single week. Now, we only have one priest, and no deacons, but seven is unreasonable. Distributing Communion takes about five minutes. We're smart people- we can wait another five or ten.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 April 2010 - 03:11 PM' timestamp='1271794266' post='2096909']
I don't know about the average guy in my parish, but I'm more than willing to wait, say... an extra fifteen minutes (and that would be pushing it on the extreme end) at Mass to completely eliminate the role of the EMHC. We usually have seven. I say usually to mean every single week. Now, we only have one priest, and no deacons, but seven is unreasonable. Distributing Communion takes about five minutes. We're smart people- we can wait another five or ten.
[/quote]

If distributing communion takes only five minutes, instead of 10 or 15 minutes, then that is that much less time that you are quiet in your pew, praying and meditating. It does mean that the choir/organist may need to come up with one or two more pieces of music, or find longer music, but the extra time singing/playing will be extra practice for and good for their souls. (Musicians need the extra help. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img] )

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='20 April 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1271794882' post='2096912']
If distributing communion takes only five minutes, instead of 10 or 15 minutes, then that is that much less time that you are quiet in your pew, praying and meditating. It does mean that the choir/organist may need to come up with one or two more pieces of music, or find longer music, but the extra time singing/playing will be extra practice for and good for their souls. (Musicians need the extra help. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img] )
[/quote]
Ah, now see....... that would be the downside of it all. At my regular parish and my 'backup' parish, I have enormous issues with the choirs. At my regular one, it's a folksy, mostly incompetent karaoke band... and I try to say that with all the charity in the world. I just cannot stand it. The one at my backup parish is in some ways worse. They're very talented, but the can't seem to resist playing jazzy contemporary junk. I (literally) twitch every time the electric guitar does a little mini-solo.
So....... I'd be down with prayerful silence. Or prayerful screaming kids. Or prayerful nails on a chalkboard.

[HisChildForever]

If the NO Mass improves its music, does away with extraordinary ministers, and altar girls, fixes some translation issues, and moves the sign of peace, reverence will increase and parishioners will jump at the chance to receive on the tongue. Or perhaps they will feel more comfortable to do so.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='20 April 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1271796981' post='2096931']
If the NO Mass improves its music, does away with extraordinary ministers, and altar girls, fixes some translation issues, and moves the sign of peace, reverence will increase and parishioners will jump at the chance to receive on the tongue. Or perhaps they will feel more comfortable to do so.
[/quote]
It would also be a good idea for individual priests to take the initiative to explain why the norm is and should be reception on the tongue, among the many other awesome things they could talk about. I feel that many priests tend to let these things go because the higher-ups aren't saying anything official. The trouble with that is that for many average parishioners, the priest *is* the Magisterium. Not in any theological sense of course, but the priest in many cases is the average parishioners sole link to the hierarchy of the Church.