Reception Of Communion

[N/A Gone]

Real quick, if we can touch it with our mouth and digestive system, what's the difference than touching it with our hands?

I know there are a bunch of people here who are against anything but reception on the mouth from the hands of a priest...Im looking for their opinions

[Mr.Cat]

In the Summa Theologica it is proposed that the consecrated should only touch the consecrated, thus that only the consecrated hands of Deacons, moreover Priests and Bishops should touch the consecrated Host.

The Church after the Second Vatican Council in writing of a document to set the requirements for permission for Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the hand cited their concerns that it would promote sacrilege, disbelief in the True Presence, ill-reverence, people walking away with the Consecrated Host, dropping of the Host, and a strong general unwelcome spirit among the faithful. In fact a majority of the Bishops in the document when queried about the subject rejected the proposal to make any expansions to permission in this practice on theological, legal, and pastoral grounds. The fact that most see Holy Communion on the Hand a result of the Second Vatican Council is very unusual in light of this.

Although the biggest and the most real theological concern was the issue of particles, the Catholic Church teaches that every consecrated particle under the appearance of bread or wine is truly and fully the total Christ. That under the smallest fragment even coming into the range where we can no longer see it there is our Lord whole and entire. The theological consensus when a partial is no longer a partial is when what we know to be the appearances of the bread or wine are broken down to the point that it could no longer be discerned through any means to be bread or wine. So in light of this after going through the digestive system this breaking apart would occur.

But because if you receive in the hand particles are left behind so the issue of what to do with those particles becomes a problem rather if you receive Holy Communion in the mouth the particles will be taken into the salvia of the mouth and more easily swallowed, thus the issue avoided. Moreover, traditional Catholic teaches such as Nuns and Priests would teach the people to drink a little bit of water swooshing it around to insure that all particles that could be swallowed was. This issue of particles is also the reason why the Priest in the older rite of Holy Mass would keep his fingers together, there would be a concern of where the Host hung during Communion (thus the Communion plate), why the Priest would then wash his fingers afterwards, and also why there is a purification of the vessels after Communion.

To answer the question more directly:[quote][b]Memoriale Domini[/b] ([i]Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion[/i])
[i]From the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on Thursday, May 29, 1969[/i]
"Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. [b]The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament[/b]: [u]it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord[/u]."

"Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.' Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.'"
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM[/url][/quote]

Edited March 25, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1219161' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:41 AM']Real quick, if we can touch it with our mouth and digestive system, what's the difference than touching it with our hands?

I know there are a bunch of people here who are against anything but reception on the mouth from the hands of a priest...Im looking for their opinions[/quote]

I am not so much against it as I prefer it... for myself. I would rather have the old practice of everybody receiving on the tongue b/c it tends to minimize irreverence and abuse, but I am not in charge of determining that and that is ok. The reason I like receiving on the tongue is that it is like being fed like a child by Christ Himself in the [i]alter Christus[/i]

[Budge]

It seems salivia would be worse then dry hands?

Anyhow I know supposely it ceases to be "jesus" according to your rules onces its been chewed up NOT to resemble bread.

Which leads to this BIble Verse..
[b]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/b]

If it isnt "jesus" by the time its hit your esophagus...whats the use?

Edited March 25, 2007 by Budge

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219355' date='Mar 25 2007, 04:22 PM']It seems salivia would be worse then dry hands?

Anyhow I know supposely it ceases to be "jesus" according to your rules onces its been chewed up NOT to resemble bread.

Which leads to this BIble Verse..
[b]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/b]

If it isnt "jesus" by the time its hit your esophagus...whats the use?

[/quote]

Where did you hear that chewing the Host into something not resembling bread results in the gutting of the Real Presence? That's not true.

[Budge]

Ive been on message boards where Catholic have asked this for themselves.

When its digesting in your stomach and being broken down by hydrocholoric acid is it still "jesus"?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219355' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:22 PM']It seems salivia would be worse then dry hands?

Anyhow I know supposely it ceases to be "jesus" according to your rules onces its been chewed up NOT to resemble bread.

Which leads to this BIble Verse..
[b]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/b]

If it isnt "jesus" by the time its hit your esophagus...whats the use?

[/quote][quote name='Budge' post='1219406' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:55 PM']Ive been on message boards where Catholic have asked this for themselves.

When its digesting in your stomach and being broken down by hydrocholoric acid is it still "jesus"?[/quote]Theoretically speaking if someone cut your arm off you would still be you. But how much of your body could someone break apart until it is no longer you? Theology states that you will be that same person until the soul is separated from the body (called death). body at this point is no longer you. Before this point (death) your body and soul are one, something like the Divinity and the Humanity of Christ are one but not in the same way.

Likewise because the Blessed Sacrament’s substance is truly our Lord it is simply under the appearance of bread and wine until those appearances have broken down to the point that it could no longer be recognized in any way to be bread or wine it is considered to be still the substance of our Lord. But this process biologically would take most likely until the actual particles of glucose is being used in the body to build ourselves up making reference to the fact that in taking Holy Communion we are made more like Christ by using His body and soul to build our bodies and souls.

Although “chewing” our Blessed Lord is not advocated by the Church and is generally disallowed through instruction. The problem and diffrence you face is that you are thinking on the visual level while we as Catholics are speaking to the edges of the sub-atomic...

Edited March 25, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[carrdero]

I remember when I was an alter boy there wasn't a choice. You had to take it by mouth. The choice between the hands and the mouth may be just one of those instances where the church has had to update practices to reflect the times. I'm from the school of thought if it ain't broke, don't fix it but I guess a few people thought there were other possible ways to practice it.

[N/A Gone]

I made this thread and I asked a question. Could a mod please delete the flamming hit-run posts by budge that have nothing to do with the topic?

at least now I have a defination of what "spam" is

budge, your 1 verse and the way you take it completelt out of context is a disrespect to any protestant hermenutical scholar.

[carrdero]

What were the church's inspiration for offering this choice? When was it implemented?

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1219161' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:41 AM']Real quick, if we can touch it with our mouth and digestive system, what's the difference than touching it with our hands?

I know there are a bunch of people here who are against anything but reception on the mouth from the hands of a priest...Im looking for their opinions[/quote]

I think this raises a good point. Maybe the more important question is "Am I allowing the grace of the sacrament to transform me freely?" It's easy to get hung up on the details of "what bread is or is not the real presence of Christ?" Why don't we bow to each other after Mass, since each of us is carrying the body of the Lord in us - walking tabernacles, if you will! To get hung up on particles of the Blessed Sacrament (while certainly affirming their containment of the entire body of the Lord) seems to obscure the purpose of the sacrament - to make Christ present to us in the elements and more importantly, in each other. The act of receiving communion is to receive Christ's grace sacramentally and be transformed by it. This, at least in my estimation, is Christ's intention for the act of Eucharist - not to be so bogged down in who should touch it. Would not the Lord want us all to have access to him? Would Christ, if he was at Mass, prohibit his brothers and sisters from touching him?

We should also be careful about preserving the dimension of "meal." Although in the middle east at the time of Christ, hospitality dictated that the host offer food directly to the mouth of a guest, this practice is entirely foreign to almost all western cultures. The imposition of this foreign practice seems to run contrary to CSL's desire that liturgy be harmonized as much as is possible with the local culture of the people celebrating it.

I understand the concerns about abuse of the host, etc. They just don't seem convincing to me - I have never seen or heard of abuse widespread enough to justify mandated oral reception as a remedy.

Just my thoughts after playing five Masses today...

[Mercy me]

My personal experience is that my hands get me into less trouble than my mouth.

[Socrates]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1219547' date='Mar 25 2007, 07:26 PM']I think this raises a good point. Maybe the more important question is "Am I allowing the grace of the sacrament to transform me freely?" It's easy to get hung up on the details of "what bread is or is not the real presence of Christ?" Why don't we bow to each other after Mass, since each of us is carrying the body of the Lord in us - walking tabernacles, if you will! To get hung up on particles of the Blessed Sacrament (while certainly affirming their containment of the entire body of the Lord) seems to obscure the purpose of the sacrament - to make Christ present to us in the elements and more importantly, in each other. The act of receiving communion is to receive Christ's grace sacramentally and be transformed by it. This, at least in my estimation, is Christ's intention for the act of Eucharist - not to be so bogged down in who should touch it. Would not the Lord want us all to have access to him? Would Christ, if he was at Mass, prohibit his brothers and sisters from touching him?

We should also be careful about preserving the dimension of "meal." Although in the middle east at the time of Christ, hospitality dictated that the host offer food directly to the mouth of a guest, this practice is entirely foreign to almost all western cultures. The imposition of this foreign practice seems to run contrary to CSL's desire that liturgy be harmonized as much as is possible with the local culture of the people celebrating it.

I understand the concerns about abuse of the host, etc. They just don't seem convincing to me - I have never seen or heard of abuse widespread enough to justify mandated oral reception as a remedy.

Just my thoughts after playing five Masses today...[/quote]
Reception on the tongue has been the standard in the Church for centuries - so this is hardly "introducing a foreign culture." And the point is that the Eucharist is not just an ordinary meal - receiving on the tongue is an outward sign of the deep reverence we should have for Christ.
And there have been plenty of abuses do to the handling of the host by the recipient.
Bl. Mother Theresa, for one, was very concerned about the practice of Communion in the Hand.

[Budge]

All this RECEPTION on the tongue stuff is NOT BIBLICAL...

just more man-made tradition..

[b]Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and [b]gave [it][/b] to the disciples, and said, [b]Take[/b], eat; this is my body. [/b]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219592' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:24 PM']All this RECEPTION on the tongue stuff is NOT BIBLICAL...

just more man-made tradition..

[b]Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and [b]gave [it][/b] to the disciples, and said, [b]Take[/b], eat; this is my body. [/b][/quote]
Thank you Budge for sharing this proof of Christ's institution of the Eucharist from the Bible (whatever the man-made traditions you follow might say to the contrary).