From Prisoners to Royalty all knelt to receive the Eucharist on the tongue.
Wakefield Jail
Princess Grace receiving Holy Communion
Story: That night the little girl came back. Slipping past the guard at the priest’s house, she went inside the Church. There she made a holy hour of prayer, an act of love to make up for the act of hatred. After her holy hour she went into the sanctuary, knelt down, bent over and with her tongue received Jesus in Holy Communion, since it was not permissible at that time for laymen to touch the Sacred Host with their hands.
The little girl continued to come back each night to make her holy hour and receive Jesus in Holy Communion on her tongue. On the thirty-second night, after she had consumed the last and thirty-second host, she accidentally made a noise and woke the guard who was sleeping. He ran after her, caught her, and beat her to death with the butt of his rifle. (Story from Archbishop Sheen)
Now: Casually received by all in the paw:
Besides having the odour of Sacrilege, it diminishes belief in the Real Presence (the only real “accomplishment” of allowing it). It’s also bad for Ecumenism with our Seperated Brethren (Orthodox, not the Protestants) , See:
Holy Communion in the hand is a big, BIG MISTAKE. Since its introduction, there is less belief in the Real Presence and Holy Communion is a casual grabfest. Please pray that our good pope revokes this horrible indult soon.
Holy Communion on the tongue is the preferred method in Miles Jesu. i saw a couple of veiled nuns receive on their hands last night..looked kind of strange…
***”It’s also bad for Ecumenism with our Seperated Brethren (Orthodox, not the Protestants)”***
I have heard this before and it is somewhat common among traditional Catholics (When talking about *real* Oecumenism, of course). However, I do not think this is at all true.
Long before Communion in the hand was allowed, there was real Oecumenism with the Orthodox and it still did not work! Then they had other excuses such as: Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, required celibacy, unleavened bread for the Host, the Crusades (especially the last one, I think), the Filioque clause, at one point some of them wanted to find an epiclesis in the Roman Mass, etc… Doing away with Communion in the hand (while it would be a very beneficial change in the West), would not do anything to change the Orthodox churches’ views on the other topics (just as important to them… or probably more because the Patriarch of Moscow thinks himself “the Pope” of the East and each Bishop is given papal-like powers that lead to divisions and creation of different groups with a lot of initials as their names).
The first two pictures are especially telling. As you say, from lowest to highest, king and commoner, ALL knelt to receive their Lord on the tongue.
At one time I was stationed in a parish with a large muslim population, some of whom attended the parish school. One day, during Forty Hours, one of the teachers had been explaining the devotion before the class went to church to for their hour of adoration. One of the muslim children raised her hand and commented: “If you truly believed that the Blessed Sacrament was Jesus, you would be on your knees with your face to the ground in His presence.”
If a little girl in elementary school of another faith entirely gets it, why can’t Catholics?
Joey: He should revoke that.
Jackie: I have also seen habited nuns receive in the hand, and it does seem very strange.
Latinmass: I don’t think it really has anything to do with being in communion with each other fully at this point (if ever). But, they have kept the Tradition, and it makes us look like the innovators. I used ecumensim here, as they “progressives” prattle on about it.
Father: Actions do indeed speak louder then words (little kids pick up on things non-verbally).
I love the photo of Princess Grace and the story from Bishop Sheen! Better – I just love the entire post!
[…] at Hallowed Ground has an exquisite post on the […]
Thank you Terry.
precisely the reason I return daily tou your blog.
Thank you for the encouragement Kat!
I receive in the hand for a number of reasons and how dare anyone call my devotion to the Blessed Sacrament into question! One can receive on the tongue and still be full of spiritual pride and lack of charity. Receiving on the tongue is NO guarantee of personal holiness.
I am not saying all who recieve by hand are “bad”, however, it is a bad practice. It does decrease the Eucharist in the eyes of people, again actions over words. It allows for easier desecration due to either malice, or accident. Receiving in the hand is indicitive of a prideful democratizing ideology (we’re all adults now, we don’t need to be mouth-fed like children). Not everyone is properly taught in the Church anymore (we know this is true). Why not let our simple gestures be a teaching tool.
I do not mean to insult anyone, however, my statements stand: it does have the “odour of Sacrilege, it diminishes belief in the Real Presence”. What purpose does it serve? What was the positive impact of allowing it? Anything? Or just change for the sake of change?
Well said, Ken. I have witnessed the Sacred Host falling from someone’s hand. I’ve seen children “munching” the Precious Body of our Lord as though it were a Ritz cracker. All due to poor catechesis.
I would never presuppose that those of us that receive on the tongue are somehow holier or even better Catholics. It is not about us. It is about the proper posture, the awestruck trembling and falling to the knees that one would assume would be the natural response, when approaching our Heavenly King in the Holy of Holies.
Thank you, again, Ken. A gentleman, as always.
Ken: O.K. That is true. The change of the practice of Communion-on-the-tongue-only does make us look like the “innovators”… and this is not a good example at all. [In all fairness, though, the use of the little spoon and the practice of intinction -along with the use of leavened bread- does help keep the tradition because it would be senseless to use the little spoon it’s just used to put the Body of Our Lord (after intinction) in one’s hands].
Angela Messenger: No one was questioning your devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. Receiving in the hand is *not* a devotion at all. It is a practice and Ken thinks it is not spiritually healthy in general. In fact, many Catholics think the same way. It gives the wrong impression to people, especially children! But if you feel that strongly about it, could you, please, give an idea of why it could be a good practice or how it can increase devotion to the Blessed Sacrament? Thanks!
I never said it could or would increase devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.
Perhaps one illustration that Communion in the hand is NOT what the Church desires is found in it’s history, especially in the US. First, Communion in the hand is by indult, that is special permission of the Pope to a practice contrary to general law and practice. No bishop or council of local bishops, i.e. USCCB (or whatever they call themselves these days) has the power or authority to allow Communion in the hand. That power is reserved to the Holy See. The US bishops usurped that power and launced a campaign promoting Communion in the hand on their own initiative, strongly implying that this was the “norm” and the way all “good” Catholics should receive Communion. All this was done without permission or consultation of the Holy See and against the wishes of Paul VI. Once Communion in the hand was in place the US Bishops were called on the carpet by the Holy See and told to stop it. Their response was that it was now the “general practice” and would be difficult to stop and “pastorally harmful.” Basically, they usurped power, acted without authority, and backed the Holy See into a corner. Paul VI could either grant an indult or command obedience which would seriously damage the Church in the USA and it’s relationship with Rome. Paul VI chose what he thought was the lesser of two evils and granted the indult. Once the ball got rolling, it snowballed out of control in Europe, Australia, and the Americas. Communion in the hand is not the desire of the Church Universal nor of the Holy See . . . the popes do/have not given Communion in the hand.
An important issue is that the majority of Catholics in the US are ignorant of the full truth of the faith and it’s practices. People are only educated as far as the educator wants them to be educated. This is especially true when it comes to religion in general and liturgy and sacraments in particular. In the seminary we were taught half-truthes and outright lies and heresy. This isn’t new. Professors only taught what they were taught. This misinformation then get’s passed on in classroom and pulpit, although in most cases with all good will.
Angela, no one questions your devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. If they do they need to examine their consciences. You are absolutely right that receiving on the tongue is no guarantee of holiness. What I do call into question is Catholic education and the education generally which no longer teaches people how to think and critique and resolve questions, but rather to blindly accept what is taught as being truth.
Angela, you said in your first post that you receive Communion in the hand for a number of reasons. Would you be willing to share them here? I think it would be helpful to know why people choose to receive in the hand. I know as a priest, although I disagree with the practice, I would much rather administer Communion in the hand. Distributing Communion on the tongue is not always a pleasant experience since people can be as sloppy about that as about receiving in the hand.
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.
Thank you Father,
“Their response was that it was now the “general practice” and would be difficult to stop and “pastorally harmful.” Basically, they usurped power, acted without authority, and backed the Holy See into a corner. ”
This is how they did everything, including “Sally the Female Altar Boy”.
Fr. Bailey, good post. Why do I receive in the hand? Although I have had a Eucharistic devotion from the age of 7 when I went to my friends First Holy Communion I have mainly seen people recieve in the hand. (I am 43) so that is just what I was always used to.
I have tried receiving on the tongue and was so focused on not letting Holy Communion fall out of my mouth/not biting the priest/fearing others were looking at me thinking – oh there is that woman who thinks she is holier than I am – that I just found I could focus on Jesus and being thankful better by receiving in the hand.
I am a regular at Eucharistic Adoration and I teach RCIA (I always teach the lessons on the Real Presence and NFP) and as I said I have believed in the Real Presence since I was quite young. I go to confession ofen to make sure that I am in a proper state to receive Holy Communion. In our diocese kneeling during the Consecration is discouraged but I do it anyway – to honor Jesus. Heck, if I could lay with my face planted on the floor during the Consecration I would.
For me, personally, receiving in the hand just works out best. If our esteemed Holy Father pulled the indult to receive in the hand I would comply immediately. But he hasn’t. So for now I will continue to receive in the hand because I can focus on JESUS, not me, not other parishioners, best that way.
PS – I don’t care about the “germ factor” of the priest putting the Host in my mouth. I regularly drink the Precious Blood from the chalice which to me is even “germier.”
Thank you Angela. You recieve Communion in the hand out of reverence for Our Lord truly present in the Eucharist, and that is the best possible reason.
I think it’s important for all of us who disagree with the practice of Communion in the hand to remember that the majority of people do not receive in the hand because of a lack of reverence or belief in the Real Presence. We have no right to judge their motives as we are not privy to their consciences. As a priest I can assure you that there are people who receive on the tongue in irreverential and even sinful ways. If we really want to promote Eucharistic devotion and reverence we must live it, not leave it at the doors of the church.
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.
Unfortunately Ken, this is nothing new. There has been conflict between Rome and the American bishops since the 19th century.
An interesting note: There were female alter servers at the parish church of Vatican City, Santa Anna, without Papal approval of course, even before they were introduced here in the US. The sin of Adam continually rears its ugly head.
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.
My parish priest (in the diocese of Memphis) once denied a young family communion because they tried to receive the eucharist on the tongue. He made a point of telling the entire congregation that we are in America, and that in America we receive the eucharist in the hand, not the tongue. The couple, and their two children stepped out of line and left the church – and I’ve never seen them since.
Communion in the hand is just one of the travesties that have followed in the wake of Vatican II.
Many kids today, and their forty-something parents for that matter, fail to genuflect on entering their pew.
It’s often difficult to concentrate on your prayers, as people consider the sanctuary little more than a social hall, a place to catch up on the week’s gossip.
People wear flip-flops to church, not to mention those worn by altar servers.
The most ridiculous songs are sung at Mass – few of them are Catholic, and some of them are hardy even Christian at all.
*sigh* How long are we to wander in the wilderness?
Wandering- the most you get now when passing the Tabernacle is is mini-bow. When I have to go to the N.O. by my house, the priest processes out surrounded by a large group of women “handlers”, and when they pass by the Tabernacle (on the side of course), they give a slight nod. The nod a little lower when passing by the Altar. Complete lack of cathechesis! A few of the old parishioners (the only ones there) pop a knee before going into the pew, but very few are leaning towards the Tabernacle, all towards the Altar. All just a small part of the “Great Renewal of Vatican II!”
Receiving on the hand in the East was a common practice long ago. In fact the spoon was seen as “heretical” by some when it was first used. Read Through Their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It : http://www.amazon.com/Through-Their-Own-Eyes-Byzantines/dp/1932401067/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1694471-4739911?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189789207&sr=8-1
Some of the first writings on the liturgy speak of making a “throne with your hand” to receive with the right hand over the left.
I know it was so, but it was stopped for a reason.
[…] 3rd, 2007 by ken88 A while back I posted on receiving Communion in the hand, and some were scandalized over what they thought was my uncharitable subjective […]
I am fairly certain two of the “Eastern Orthodox” pictures are in fact Greek Catholics. The topmost one looks typically Hungarian Greek Catholic – especially given that church is known for ministry to “Gypsies”… The last one is definately Melkite – as they stopped using the spoon, and the priest offers the Eucharist by (his) hand (into the communicant’s mouth) after intincture.
Thank fo the info.