Author Topic: Communion in Hand (Read 3226 times)

EcceAgnusDei · « **on:** March 18, 2010, 12:09:27 AM »

I've been trying to argue against Communion in the hand on the grounds that it is disrespectful. Does anyone know the best way to defend this?

Here is what one person said to me: why is it any less an affront to Christ to subject him to our saliva and digestive processes than our hands?

Any answers?

Another one I usually get is that the apostles received in hand so why shouldn't they. I answer that the apostles should be held at the level of a priest or bishop, not a lay person. But this leads back to touching the Host in the first place and someone said that the apostles were sinful and their hands were no more worthy to touch the Eucharist than ours are.

Thanks and God bless!

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:38:51 AM »

Quote

why is it any less an affront to Christ to subject him to our saliva and digestive processes than our hands?

Aside from the proper signification of the priest feeding the flock and the actual consecration of the priests hands, one could easily turn the table and reduce their indifference to the absurd. When they object, ask them why it matters at all? Then start picking away at their answers. There must be some sign of reverence present. Then look to tradition and explain that it is not arbitrary. Ask them to think about the reasons why as opposed to acting like a flippant teenager with regard to the holiest Thing on earth. Explain to them the traditional distinction between profane and sacred, a notion that has been utterly destroyed in the novus ordo.

You could also mention that there is no parity between what is of choice externally and what happens of necessity with regard to actual eating. Consequently, there is no sin where the force of necessity is present; it ceases to be a human act properly speaking.

Additionally, in the old rite of baptism, the mouth is in fact consecrated to eat the Bread of Life as well.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2010, 02:56:26 AM »

Cardinal Ratzinger from his book God Is Not With Me --

Quote

"It would be incorrect to assume that subjecting Our Lord to the digestive acids of the stomach is an act of irreverence, one that renders Holy Communion an occasion of sacrilege. Though gross mastication is involved, and often tongues have a greasy film on them, the Eucharist can bear great spiritual fruit and is not always to be seen as unapproachable or forbidden."

I made that up, of course, but I think it's a pretty good imitation of one of Ratzinger's twisted strategies. This is where he takes an absurd and inane straw man argument that no one except him has ever thought of or said before, which he attacks in order to sound conservative ( "It is not something the Catholic Church can accept to say that dogs should be made priests..." ) Then he spins out his rebuttal into a false, frustratingly nonsensical or just plain heretical conclusion that is almost as bad as the original straw man ( "... which is why the act of ordaining women cannot be seen as negative in the light of this dangerous proposition..." )

Vladimir · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2010, 07:57:08 AM »

A very common misconception is that the Catholic public worship gradually got more and more formalized and ritualistic over time. This notion is completely false. The Israelites had a very formal religion, and their public worship was full of symbolic rituals, etc much like the Holy Mass.

The Apostles received Holy Communion on the tongue I think. Before Vatican II and the Protestant Reformation all Christians, Catholic or schismatic (I guess that these aren't true Christians), received Holy Communion on the tongue only.

Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2010, 09:50:47 AM »

Quote from: Vladimir

Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.

That's just about all that needs to be said.