I want to make it clear that I am not condemning Catholics who receive on the hand here. This is a reply to a cleric who claimed that it was better to receive on the hand and that this was the more "traditional" form Support the channel by visiting: brianholdsworth.ca/help-me
But you kind of are Brain, and because these matters are not within your authority to judge. You have authority over this matter and the Church has a History of is use.
You in FACT put catholics down as not as "catholic " as you for receiving on the hand. You clearly ard confused between tradition and Tradition which is ironic considering you call yourself a traditionalist. Whether by indult or not POPES allow communion in the hand and so you need to stop laying guilt trips on catholics who receive that way. If you want it to change write your bishop or the pope. Stop causing division over this matter and acting like a superior catholic.
I don’t think it’s better to receive on the hand. I do wonder why however, at seminary before I discerned out, none of the men received on the tongue, and we were told to receive on the hand. Even the more traditional guys would follow the directive of the rector/seminary.
Before communion on the hand, Satanists used to put alum in their mouths to dry up their saliva. Then they could receive communion on the tongue and then later remove it from their dry mouth and use it in a black mass.
Excellent. I’m a catholic Priest and anecdotally I believe abuse of the Eucharist is at an all time high. At every funeral I do that a mass is celebrated for I have to remind people with chewing gum that they will not receive the Eucharist if they come forward. And I’ve had to chase people down to the pews to consume it or else give it back. One young woman confronted me when I asked for it back. Which makes me wonder as to why she put it in her bag. It needs to be addressed. I’ve also started to put out kneelers for mass and allow those who wish to receive on the tongue kneeling to do so and the amount of people who do so now is amazing. Great witness. Thanks Brian.
Thank you for putting out kneelers. I desire to kneel for communion but without them I’m afraid of accidentally knocking into the priest. I’m blessed to be near parishes that use the altar rail. As you use them, you will find more and more people coming to desire to kneel. Bless you!
Thank you much Father. You are in a difficult position of which I truly feel for you and all priests as the responsibility is great. I recommended, (although not sure if it helps) to state before the distribution of the Eucharist to announce that "anyone receiving Communion must be Catholic in the state of grace with the church". The priest in my parish has put out kneelers as well and so many more people are now kneeling. Also he announced that if one cannot kneel that they can stand and still receive the Eucharist on the tongue. I often think if I am sinning as I wander about all the little particles that may be on the floor and if I should remove my shoes before going in the Communion line. I know it sounds funny. God bless
You obviously ain’t a Maronite Priest. You sound phony to me. A good Maronite can handle these types situations with class. No need to chase after and scare women with threats of taking their communion back. Who the hell gives you the right to decide who deserves communion? You don’t deserve to handle communion. You ain’t a Maronite.
Everyone needs to be vigilant for Eucharistic abuses: many years ago, the pastor in my parish noticed a woman turn away quickly after receiving, and thought he saw her remove the host from her mouth. He stopped the procession and called the ushers (God bless the KCs) who escorted her back to him. The lady was mentally disturbed and told father that she wanted to take Communion to her dog who was sick at home. Father obviously didn’t allow that to happen…
At my FSSP parish our Sunday ushers stand against the walls where the communicants pass by, watching with white gloves on ready to intervene in if abuse should occur.
Oh my, today at a funeral a lady received with her hands and started to walk away. The priest stopped what he was doing and gestured to those around her to get her attention. She is clueless and a little off. (I know her). This isn't something you put in your pocket for a later time.
That poor lady, she was doing the best for her dog with her mind at the level it was, I hope they explained to her kindly and loved her because she was trying to bring healing to her dog the best way she knew with her mental disorder.
I Don’t Have a Latin Mass anywhere near me. Also, I’m disabled due to several strokes and heart conditions. I can’t drive. I go to the regular Mass in my Parish and I fall on my knees and receive on the tongue. My first Holy Communion was with alter rails, kneeling, and on the tongue. I am absolutely NOT worthy to receive my LORD in my hands. No, I won’t ever do it again.
I was taught that only the priest was ordained to touch the host. We would receive communion on the tongue and as we did the second priest would hold a platen Under our chins so no crumbs would fall on the ground. That’s how sacred it was. The priest would then take the platen and scrape the crumbs into the chalice with the wine before drinking it.
I go to a conservative Catholic Church with an altar railing, and people kneel to receive communion on the tongue. I feel that it is s wonderful experience having communion in that way.
I was raised Catholic, but turned Greek Orthodox (but in no way opposed to my Catholic friends). I think the big distinction is “taking” versus “receiving” communion. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the priest will give you the Eucharist on a spoon, feeding you the gift of life. In no way do I handle the Eucharist with my hands - it is given to me as a gift, and there is a certain beauty in that. From my youth, I was taught in the Catholic Church to receive the Eucharist in my hand. But it feels more like “taking” versus “receiving”. Being fed the Eucharist from a trusted priest hits your heart a little bit different. You are surrendering to your spiritual advisor and to Christ himself to receive the gift of life. In no way am I denigrating receiving the Eucharist by hand, but receiving by mouth communicates “surrender” a little better.
The last time I checked the Bible, Jesus said "take and eat." He never to my recollection said to "receive.". Why is wrong to go back to the original Tradition of receiving Communion in your hands that been sanctified by Jesus' wounds from being nailed to the Cross? Our hands are as sacred as our tongue.
@HaroldTheSloth Beautiful sentiment. Recieving on the tongue for me = no worries of mortifying accidents, worrying that my hands aren't clean enough or having to ever question if it might be offensive.
@@tomredd9025Our hands are not consecrated like a priests hands are. Also Jesus said that to the apostles, his direct disciples or the first priests, which we definitely are not even close to in holiness or authority.
Since I didn't hear the sermon in question, I can't say for certain, but I think there is a possibility you might have missed the priest's point. And that comes back to the Catholic stereotypes you mention at the beginning. There are --- MANY --- traditionalists, here on UA-cam and I'm sure in real life too!, who do hang on to Latin for Latin sake. These are the ultraradicalised, only the SSPX is the True Church, the new mass is a satanic - Lutheran prayer service, etc, etc. These are Catholics who will both straight up tell you that you're a heretic if you go to a "novus ordo parish" on the one hand and will proudly proclaim that to be excommunicated by fake pope Bergoglio is a signal honour. The point that priest was really making was literally that small-t traditions change! It wasn't some obscure Eastern Orthodox council that recommended taking the Eucharist in the hand. It was none other than major Church Father St Cyril of Jerusalem who, writing in the 300s, described communion in the hand as an early practice. This is not Gnosticism. This is not some esoteric teaching that a small cabal of inner sanctum priests lord over an ignorant congregation. This is literally stuff that you can look up on Catholic Answers. Frankly, I'm tired of the ubertraditionalists and their rhetoric. I'm as tired of them as I am of ugly churches, clown masses, and other modern abuses like forcing people to receive in the hand when they wish to receive on the tongue. It's just abuse in a different direction. As for why we're still talking about communion in the hand --- it's not because of the indult per se. The enemy loves it when Catholics turn against Catholics.
@@StanleyPinchak -- This is a false conflation. Disbelief -- or belief -- in the Real Presence is a function of faith formation and catachesis. We could be receiving the Eucharist through a straw and that wouldn't affect either disbelief or belief.
Communion on the hand is really only a thing in the US & Canada. This doesn’t happen in Latin America or even Spanish masses here in the US. And guess what ONLY the priests and the deacon give communion ZERO extraordinary ministers. Whatever that means. They are more serious and I would say there societies are more Christian than ours.
I saw someone walk away with a host at Mass. I confronted that person and had them stop and consume. That's enough reason to stop the practice. Lay hands are not consecrated. In the old Baptism rite, the infants tongue was, prepared to receive Communion with special prayers of exorcism and consecration. Post Vatican II rites stopped those practices. Why? I left my local NO parish because the elderly 70s era priest refuses Communion on the tongue due to "slobber"....his exact words. I found another parish that uses the altar rails to kneel and receive on the tongue.
As a child, I remember receiving the Eucharist on my tongue, but, by the time I was confirmed, many encouraged receiving the Eucharist reverently in the hand. As an adult, I have always received communion reverently in the hand because I feel that it is safer. I’m fairly tall, and feel there is a greater likelihood that the Eucharist will fall out the other way. I have never witnessed anyone taking the consecrated host out of their mouth and putting it in their pocket, but someone who is either that irreverent or has dark intentions would have no problem doing that whether they received on the tongue or the hand. When I was taught how to receive the Eucharist in the hand, I was taught to do it with great reverence, always placing it in my mouth before walking back to my pew. There have always been abuses at the Lord’s Table. Saint Paul even writes to warn the church about them, I believe, in one of his epistles to the Church as Corinth. Beyond teaching Catholics the proper way to receive communion, I don’t see how the Church can safeguard against these abuses. How do we know who is coming forward to the altar? Ultimately, God will judge those who blaspheme or who take communion in an unworthy manner.
I don't think the claim is that communion on the tongue will absolutely safeguard against abuses. There are obviously levels to which safety measures will work better than others, so we should adopt the more reliable (and more reverent) of the options.
Good morning. And have you meditated on the particles of the Host, have you looked for information about this? How do you check your hand and your fingers they both touch God.
@rafaeljonathanmonterrosoca8400 I think you're overthinking it. The host is meant to be consumed. If we have less stages of interruption before that happens, the better.
It's a duty and responsibility of Catholic clergy - especially the priests - to guard the Eucharist against desecration. Keeping it out of the hands of the laity is the best singular practice of guarding. Furthermore, I'd expect any sufficiently rational Catholic layman to not want the responsibility of guarding the Eucharist against desecration. ☝🏻
I have received the Holy Eucharist while kneeling on the tongue. However, I do acknowledge that receiving on hand is allowed by the Catholic Church. Just receive the Blessed Eucharist with reverence either on hand or tongue. Peace.
@lzcontrol , don't get me wrong. I love if the communion on the tongue while kneeling becomes the norm again. I will always receive my Lord that way. But the Church approved communion on hand as well. As Catholic, we should accept the magisterium.
@hanmirz4803 Priests' hands are specifically consecrated in order to administer the sacraments, ESPECIALLY the Eucharist. My hands aren't consecrated, so no Holy Communion in the hand for me.
Cardinal Burke wrote a book about the need for reverence for Our Lord in the Eucharist and the need to end the practices of receiving in the hand and receiving while knowingly in the state of grave mortal sin
First off, it's Cardinal Burke (not just Burke), who is a theologian and a priest, which makes him an authority, not you. Secondly, he's just one of thousands of priests and saints who've said the same thing over the 2 millennium of the Church. Several other comments bring up other examples. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Fulton Sheen, Padre Pio, etc) The group pushing communion in the hand is a small and mostly modern (post Vatican II/1970s) group. Thirdly, it's ironic that this issue was brought up in the video.
For me, it's an act of obedience and submission to our Lord. My preferred way without thinking was to receive the Eucharist in hand. However, I started to recieve the Eucharist on the tongue, precisely because I didn't want to receive it in that fashion. That's just my walk with Christ though, and a small way to die to myself, my selfish pride. God bless you all.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem said “When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateches. On this authority, Paul vi said that properly catechized groups could receive in this manner.
@@teresasnamesake4784 In the mode of reception you are referencing, the commonly accepted practice was for the faithful to have the Eucharist placed in their cupped right hand with fingers together so as to not drop Sacred Fragments on the ground; they did not touch the Eucharist with their fingers. They would receive Communion with their mouths directly from the palms of their hands while bowing reverently, and they were supposed to receive the Host completely, minding not to allow fragments to fall. The change to Communion on the tongue (with a paten) was in part due to the awareness that it is the best way to keep Sacred Fragments from falling to the ground.
In the mode of reception you are referencing, the commonly accepted practice was for the faithful to have the Eucharist placed in their cupped right hand with fingers together so as to not drop Sacred Fragments on the ground; they did not touch the Eucharist with their fingers. They would receive Communion with their mouths directly from the palms of their hands while bowing reverently, and they were supposed to receive the Host completely, minding not to allow fragments to fall. The change to Communion on the tongue (with a paten) was in part due to the awareness that it is the best way to keep Sacred Fragments from falling to the ground.@@teresasnamesake4784
In the mode of reception you are referencing, the commonly accepted practice was for the faithful to have the Eucharist placed in their cupped right hand with fingers together so as to not drop Sacred Fragments on the ground; they did not touch the Eucharist with their fingers. They would receive Communion with their mouths directly from the palms of their right hands while bowing reverently, and they were supposed to receive the Host completely, minding not to allow fragments to fall. The change to Communion on the tongue (with a paten) was in part due to the awareness that it is the best way to keep Sacred Fragments from falling to the ground.
Brian, I show your previous video about this to my RCIA students each year. This one is phenomenal as well. Thank you! So succint and calm. much appreciated
I’m new to Catholicism. I want to one day participate. To answer your question of “why wouldn’t anyone want to receive it in the hand” the reason I was hoping to receive in the hand (as I seen that is what they did for the kids but not the adults) is because I have extreme trauma and CPTSD. To have to have someone put something in my mouth is incredibly distressing and EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT it feels inappropriate to me because of my past experiences. When I instead could have it in my hand that is a great relief. I don’t understand why it can’t just be a requirement to eat it or put it in our mouths ourselves right there in-front of who is giving it to us. I’m not asking for anyone to weigh in on this please, I am just letting him know why
It’s my obligation to weigh in to your comment because truth must always prevail our wants. We all need to encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to surrender their fears, doubts and anxieties to the Lord. We can’t shoulder that burden but the Lord can and commands us to! Matt 11: 28-30. God Bless sister, I pray that you may be set free.
“Truth”, if you believe receiving on the tongue is the only way you can receive you’re not speaking truth it’s just what you yourself perceive as truth even though it has been accepted by the church. You base this truth on absolutely nothing but tradition.
What bothers me is the nibbling around the edge. It's not a cookie. You don't chew it, either. And intincted wafers pressed in the hand are not the best alternative, it just gets "blood on your hands".
@@MNkno -- Yet ironically, this is exactly what Jesus said. Ho trôgôn mou ten sarka ... echei zoen aiônion. The one gnawing and nibbling my flesh has eternal life.
Try going to another church. I went to a different church one time and when I opened my mouth to receive communion, the priest looked disgusted, and just threw it in there. 🙄. I have not been back to that church.
From the GIRM 160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession. 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 norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91). When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. The Roman Missal: Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II, Third Typical Edition. (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 50.
Thank you for addressing this crucial topic. I’m a Catholic priest and this is a matter I feel very strongly about, as I sense that the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand has lead to an overall weakening of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to receive in the hand reverently; my question is ‘which way of receiving is likely to be most spiritually fruitful?’ One can receive the Lord physically, but it might bear no fruit spiritually, perhaps because of the presence of mortal sin, or the person receives unthinkingly and without fervour - Holy Communion is not like taking a pill which produces effects automatically. What happens at Holy Communion? God is giving Himself to us as our spiritual food. The way we receive therefore should express the fact that we are being fed and that this is not an ‘ordinary’ feeding activity for us. Receiving on the tongue from the hand of another [the priest] would convey those meanings well to us. Would receiving in the hand also convey them? Not as clearly, as there is still an element of ‘feeding ourselves,’ and we also tend to put out our hands to receive objects all the time - it’s nothing special. Is it possible for us to become over-familiar with things, or people or activities? Without doubt. Can this even happen with sacred things? This is also true, unfortunately. When we receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, we should almost be in perpetual shock at the idea that God should come to us, humble Himself in this way for our sake. If we receive Holy Communion frequently, the danger of over-familiarity is ever present: we should adopt the manner of receiving which minimises this danger, and which reinforces our faith. If our manner of receiving Holy Communion is not sufficiently ‘different’ from our everyday activities, if it does not ‘jolt’ us into realising something special and out of the ordinary is happening, then the likelihood of over-familiarity increases. And as that increases, the fruitfulness of our Holy Communion decreases. It is healthy for us to acknowledge that we are not God but created beings, and that we depend on God for life, for everything. We are not self-sufficient beings - only God is self-sufficient. If we receive on the tongue, it conveys the meaning that we are not self-sufficient - we depend on another, we do not control our lives, even that we are helpless without God. These meanings are present if we receive in the hand but here too, the symbolism is weaker as there is more of a control element on our part. With kneeling, this allows the body to instruct the soul that something utterly out of the ordinary is taking place, that our relationship to God is not one of equality, that we are not receiving an ‘object’ but the very Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. It lends itself to fostering humility, gratitude and love which should lead to a fruitful reception of Holy Communion. Your point about receiving in the hand being a possible occasion for irreverence or desecration is well made. Only yesterday I had to invite a person to receive on the tongue who had held out a hand covered in biro ink.
There's no debate, in the East Syriac Church. Our Church Father Mar Narsai explains in his commentaries, that we have to recieve the Lord our God on our hands, which are placed in a cross shape, by placing the right hand over the left. This is the norm traditionally followed in the Syro Malabar church and the Chaldean Catholic church.
@lzcontrol Yes. My response was to some people who are trying to say that receiving communion on the hands is not "Catholic", because it doesn't align with the Roman rite tradition. But the Church is Catholic because it values both these traditions, not becausr it's Roman.
that is based on wrong understanding of st. Cyril`s instructions - that way of a receivinig was for a priest. In eastern catholic tradition, priests receive that way and they give to the laity on the tongue.
Conditions for the indult to receive Holy Communion in the hand (number 3 is particularly interesting, given that no kneelers are provided for those that need them. number 5, given the rate of belief in the Real Presence in the US): 1) Communion in the hand had to already be presently in that country; 2) the bishops of that country had to have two-thirds majority vote in favor of Communion in the hand; 3) Communion in the hand should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional manner; 4) the way of introducing this must be done tactfully; 5) Communion in the hand should not cause the person to think it is just ordinary bread; 6) one must be careful to not allow profanation or any fragment to fall.
The instruction says that the comunicant place the host in his/her mouth in front of the priest. A malicious person can always take the host from their mouth if the intention is to steal the host. Sadly, this has been done for centuries. Why are people talking about this, when the general instruction spells out clearly the various ways for receiving communion, all of them approved by the magisterium. The regional council of bishops may refine the teaching, as when the USCCB repressed communion by intinction, which is the most common way to recieve under both species here in Mexico. We who are not of the magisterium should not arrogantly pretend that our prejudices are sounder than the Church teaching. The general instruction also says that, for the sake of expressing unity, we ought to conform to the norms of our community.
You’re the one who’s being arrogant here, looking down on those who want to show their reverence and Love for the Lord. Everyone of us has every right to receive Christ on the tongue kneeling.
I totally agree that communion on the tongue is the only respectful way. What I want to say is that it is possible to celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass in the novus ordo form with great reverence. Many common practices being regularly seen in parishes were only intended to be optional at most. At my parish these are common practices in the novus ordo: communion on the tongue kneeling at the communion rail; the priest leads the mass ad orientam; the common prayers such as the Kylie and Sanctus in Gregorian chant; and more. Try streaming the Sunday English mass from St John Cantius parish in Chicago to see what this looks like.
“Only respectable way”. That is just your opinion. I don’t find receiving on the tongue more respectful just people wanting it the “traditional” way. If you receive on your hand or tongue in mortal sin or living a double life that’s what God cares about the most.
Great points. I like to challenge the antiquarian argument of Holy Communion on the hand being the original practice, and therefore the more traditional way by appealing to such examples of how rules of sports have changed as ways to make improvements and/or in giving greater depth to the object of the game: e.g.: if the original practice is that which is the purest form/most traditional way, then basketball needs to go back to mounting peach baskets at each end; American football needs to return to using leather helmets, etc. Authentic tradition is born from any change or addition leading to greater fulfillment and expression of the inherent meaning/essence of what is being practiced. In the case of Holy Communion, that posture which has the greatest capacity to express humility, childlike faith, and receptivity to the great gift of God’s love offered to us in the Eucharist is to kneel and receive from the hand of the priest directly in the mouth - as came to be understood and lived through living tradition over time and practice (just like steel basketball hoops on which nylon nets with open bottoms hang came to be organically through practice of playing the game and as a real development to improve the game of basketball).
I saw someone put Our Lord in a bag secretly after receiving and when they were confronted they denied it and actually got away with it. All the ushers became aware and formed a circle and started to pray fervently.
@@TheXone7 um.... you are obviously unaware of all the sacriliges that happen to consecrated hosts, including particpiating in satanic rituals, which is a very real and disturbingly common practice. Don't put rose-colored glasses on to the realities of life.
8:44 A friend of mine was a sacristan at the cathedral in St. Louis. He told me this one time these people received and just left the host in the pew. He didn't think it was malicious, they were foreigners, probably Chinese and I don't think they understood what was going on. But that's just another example of potential abuses you have with communion in the hand
Yes, when I serve one of the ways we assist is by purifying the hands of the priest by pouring water over them into a bowl so none of the host stays on his hands. Extraordinary ministries do something similar after mass. The lay people do not do this when they receive on the hand.
Whenever I witness someone mishandling the Host, I get a sharp pain in my chest, as if my heart were suddenly squeezed in a tourniquet. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.
I sometimes gasp out loud. I’m so dismayed by it. I once was at a downtown Catholic Church on my city and the communion was being given out by a female layperson who accidentally dropped it on the floor. 😮🙄. I gasped in shock. And then I looked down. I couldn’t believe it. I then watched as she and the priest fumbled about trying to pick up this host. 😞
"Forgive for they know not what they do" is the perfect response. The church cannot restrain faithful Christians from receiving in the hands on the excuse that some would abuse His body. Do they think they should have prevented His body from falling into Pilate's hands?
Accepting Communion with your hands became a practice, in the practical sense, as a means of preventing the transmission of disease. It is not meant as an act of corruption. God wants us to use our common sense.
@@hiuszenoom809 It’s not about the host. We eat in anyway so the method of receiving it makes no difference, should it be loaded with germs. It’s about the hand of the priest. I don’t want his fingers to be near my tongue, maybe touching it occasionally, especially not moments after he has been doing the same with other people‘s mouths.
This is exactly the complaint I had during COVID, with people terrified not just to be in church but to receive communion. It revealed to me how little faith most people really have, if they think the body and blood of Christ is a carrier of disease.
This is one of the few times I wish to intervene on the issue, as it's not a factional problem; it's an everyone-at-fault problem, including the clergy. I don’t often make commentary to other Catholics or the faithful on matters like this because, to be honest, much of my time is spent correcting the waves of misinformation Protestants spread about the Church. It’s sometimes exhausting, as these misunderstandings about doctrine, history, and practice require constant attention. It's worse so when a former protestant after 3 years of hard study is also spending time correcting cradle Catholics. First, let’s acknowledge that both forms of receiving the Eucharist-on the tongue and in the hand-are valid when done PROPERLY and with REVERENCE. This has been established by the Church’s Magisterium, and historically, we see both practices reflected in early Church teaching. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the faithful on how to receive in the hand, saying: “Make your left hand a throne for your right, as for that which is to receive a King. Then, hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ.” His imagery is profoundly reverent-it’s not a casual act, but one of awe and humility. That said, concerns about sacrilege, abuse, or irreverence in receiving the Eucharist are completely valid. Desecration of the Eucharist, whether intentional or through carelessness, is a grave concern. Stories of people pocketing the host, walking away without consuming it, or even worse, using it for satanic rituals, are horrifying and heartbreaking. These incidents demand action-not just from the laity, but especially from our shepherds, and the clergy. However, I don’t believe the solution lies in restricting the faithful who prefer to receive in the hand, especially if they do so with the utmost reverence. Instead, the Church as a whole needs to take a firmer, more active stance in safeguarding the Eucharist. This means: Educating the faithful on the significance of the Eucharist should be a top priority as many Catholics, sadly, don’t even believe in the Real Presence. Without this foundational belief, it’s no surprise that some approach Communion casually or even irreverently. Catechesis must be prioritized at every level-homilies, RCIA, and even through broader parish initiatives. A well-formed Catholic knows that receiving the Eucharist is not just a ritual but an encounter with the living Christ. It is worth noting that upon my studies I would read about the build-up of poor catechesis pre-reformation, one of the root causes of the Protestant Reformation was a widespread lack of catechesis among the faithful and even the clergy. This led to misunderstandings, abuses, and a vulnerability to doctrinal errors that fractured the Church. If we neglect proper formation today, we risk repeating those same mistakes, creating an environment where confusion and irreverence flourish. This isn’t just about the Eucharist; it’s about ensuring the faithful have a solid foundation in the faith itself. Clergy vigilance and pastoral care: Priests, deacons, and Eucharistic ministers have a responsibility to protect the Blessed Sacrament. This includes being attentive to communicants, especially those who may be unfamiliar with the parish or exhibit strange behavior. Unfortunately, in some places, there is a tendency to focus attention on wealthy donors or influential parishioners (in my area at least), leaving others overlooked. True shepherds should care first and foremost for all souls entrusted to them, especially the lost, the vulnerable, and even those who may pose a risk of sacrilege. This doesn’t mean being uncharitable but being vigilant and prudent. Unity over division: Rather than arguing over whether Communion in the hand or on the tongue is “better” or “more traditional,” let’s remember what unites us: the Eucharist itself. Yes, Communion on the tongue has become the normative traditional practice for many reasons, and Pope St. Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini articulated this beautifully. Yet we also have evidence from early Church history that Communion in the hand was practiced with deep reverence. The real question isn’t about the “form” but about the reverence and faith with which we receive. We must be careful not to divide ourselves over preferences, but instead focus on fostering a deeper love and understanding of the Eucharist in all forms. Ultimately, I think it’s important to recognize that the Eucharist is a gift-a gift so profound that we can never fully comprehend it. It’s Christ’s own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity given to us for our salvation. Our priority should be ensuring that this gift is received with the dignity and reverence it deserves, not creating unnecessary divisions among the faithful. I want to add that, as much as I value these discussions within the Church, we must be careful not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Much of my time is spent defending the Church against Protestant misunderstandings and accusations. Ironically, Protestants often mock our reverence for the Eucharist as “weird” or “idolatrous,” when in truth, their dismissal of the Real Presence has led to the very irreverence and fragmentation they accuse us of. For them, Communion has often become a mere symbolic act, stripped of its sacramental depth and connection to Christ’s sacrifice. As Catholics, we cannot afford to lose sight of what sets us apart-our faith in the Real Presence and our unwavering commitment to Christ in the Eucharist. I apologize for the wordy post but, let’s ensure that whether we receive on the tongue or in the hand, it is done with deep faith, reverence, and love. And let’s call on our clergy to lead by example, safeguarding the Eucharist from abuse while fostering a renewed sense of awe and wonder among the faithful. Christ deserves nothing less.
I appreciate the concern Brian has for people stealing hosts, it bothers me too, but you could pretty easily just keep the Eucharist in your mouth if you wanted to steal it….
again arguing from an edge case is not a strong argument. its weak whatabboutism. With CITH you can see the problem plain as day and there is a mountain of evidence against this practice.
@ Oh I would say there are plenty of counter arguments against Brian’s position, I just happened to be countering one of them. To be honest it seems this argument blows the “satanists might steal the host” thing out of the water…
There's just other things I think should be returned before this one is done away with. We had a sacramental priest visit and point out that the breaking of the bread is happening quietly while we are saying peace but that should be a high point of the mass where everyone is paying attention because it's the breaking of Jesus's body to bring us life. But no one talks about that nearly as much as taking it in the hand.
I’m converting and in OCIA. This week in daily mass, this point of the mass you reference has struck me and even pains my heart when I watch it happen.
You need to read some of what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has to say about this. It was a different way of receiving in the hand than how people receive now. But the reason it was ended is that the clergy knew that some of the crumbs were still falling on the floor and as it is known every drop of crumbs contains the Lord. It was changed to prevent the abomination of Christ in the Eucharist scandalized. Maybe you should look up how he said they received in the hand prior to the switch to communion on the tongue
I was scandalized by the Bishop's bizarre way to receive Communion. It looked like some kind of animal eating something. I very like the original Tradition of receiving Communion in the hand. It is holy, it is allowed by the Church and it is beautiful and is the original Tradition of the Church. It also follows Jesus' words to "Take and Eat.". My conscious is clear on this point. But Bishop Anathasius has unnecessarily scandalized a whole lot of good and holy people to push his personal unacceptable beliefs.
Brian, love your content! I used to only receive in the hand, for I thought receiving on the tongue was awkward and unnecessary. And also thought, hey if the Church permits it must be fine. But I can attest to reception on the tongue for me has increased my reverence for the Eucharist. I do a more thorough examination of conscience beforehand and naturally view the host as Christ, not merely a host in a symbolic sense to be thought of as Him. Not saying you can't receive in the hand and have great reverence, but from all I hear from other Catholics and my own experience on the tongue sure does seem to be beneficial for our faith.
I prefer the Latin mass myself, but all this in fighting among Catholics just gets tiring after a while. The communion rail/communion in the hand battle is kind of like here in America with the Native Americans saying how they were here before the evil white man, so they’re the “true” Americans. But anybody that’s taking an anthropology class will tell you if you go back far enough in history “native Americans” aren’t even native to America. Communion in the hand seems to of been the norm for the first several hundred years and although I prefer the communion rail myself, I realize it was the 13th or 14th century invention. They’re never gonna dig up a scroll that’s going to describe the apostle Paul, or one of his disciples. carving communion rails out of limestone for the people of Ephesus, or any other church.
I may be wrong, but I cannot imagine the disciples not breaking, passing, and consuming the Eucharist with their hands. As an artist my hands are especially important to me, and I personally consider it a beautiful blessing and moment when I hold the Eucharist briefly in my hands before consuming. Either way, it is a thanksgiving and I am deeply grateful to be able to receive my Lord in this holy sacrament.
It’s a shame that more people don’t know about The Lady of Akita apparitions. There Our Lady made it clear that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, was very much offended by people receiving him in the hand rather than on the tongue when they receive communion. People need to learn about what Sister Agnes Sasagawa was told and experienced at her convent. It’s one of the most important Marian apparitions in modern times.
I do not get bent out of shape over the way communion is celebrated. I do raise questions when I hear people viture signal how perfectly they get it correct. Reminds me of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying
As I've mentioned before I'm a Protestant minister. I have seen similar pocketing of the bread. First was in a Greek Orthodox Church I was visiting in Florida. They presented a whole loaf, much like they believed Christ did in the last supper. They broke it in half, and then as people would come up, they would break off a bit. I saw one older woman tear off a whole huge chunk. She then took a bit of it and wrapped the chunk in a handkerchief and slip it in her purse. Several years before I had seen a woman do exactly the same thing at a church I was serving in Scotland. As her pastor, I went to see her the next day. She lived in a tiny cottage very near the church building. The minute I got it, I knew right away, she did it for food. So I said nothing to her, but I told some other people in the church, and they started taking food to her, and taking her to the shops to let her buy what she wanted. I believe the Orthodox lady was doing the same thing. But the lady you showed took a wafer. Weird. I found the video interesting. Thanks Brian.
When I was in training a priest warned me to watch out for anyone walking away with the sacrament. He knew, from experience, that there are people who come and take the host for nefarious practices.
That's not Communion. Communion in the Orthodox Church isintincted and distributed with a spoon. What you saw was evlogia, the bread blessed and distributed at the end of some services. Not Communion.
The thing you saw in the Orthodox Church sounds like the unconsecrated bread they give out at the end, which people are free to wrap up and take home. At the Orthodox Liturgy, The Eucharistic Bread is mixed into the chalice with the Precious Blood and consumed as a mush from a spoon. I don’t see how they could possibly put that in their pocket and walk home. Furthermore, the priest always administers it directly into the communicant’s mouth.
The thing you saw in the Orthodox Church was probably not the Eucharist, but rather antidoron. Literally “instead of the gifts” which is blessed, but not consecrated. Generally, to my understanding, Orthodox practice is to receive the gifts of the body and blood together from a spoon which thankfully leaves little opportunity for thieves to walk off and do Lord knows what with the gifts.
I agree with everything said in the video. That being said; the novus ordo mass that I attend is very recerent. The one Latin Mass that I've attended because its nearby, just did not feel reverent to me. It felt as though it was rushed and that it was meant for the priest daying it only. The mass is a sacrifice offered up for the faithful; the one low mass I went to felt like intruding on a personal mass meant for the priest alone. Reverence is the main issue over everything else. Language doesn't matter if the priest is skipping parts of the mass because he thinks nobody can understand the Latin
I attend an Ordinariate parish where communion is given only on the tongue, no exceptions, because it is given by intinction (dipped in the Precious Blood first). I have never heard our pastor or any presiding priest have to make an announcement that someone walked away with the Eucharist without consuming It, and to keep an eye out for such things, but I've heard such announcements at other Novus Ordo parishes where Holy Communion is received by most parishioners in the hand.
What happens if somebody has Celiac and can't receive the host? I noticed that my tlm so it hasn't happened in a while and I don't know if the person switched to a different mass time or what but this person usually went last and he wore white gloves and he was given special permission to receive from the cup of precious blood I'm assuming because he's allergic to wheat and cannot receive the host.
@femaleKCRoyalsFan I have seen people provide low gluten hosts to be consecrated that are for them to consume I would think with some advance notice that arrangements could be made to provide the Precious Blood only if that were needed.
Communion by hand is the ordinary way for 800 years. It will always be discussed. The hand and tongue are both parts of the body temple. The body temple is dogma. Catholics need to be careful how they approach this issue to not reject this dogma St Paul gave us.
@ Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Cyril of Alexander and John Climacus disagree. Cyril describes it as, “Coming up to receive, do not approach with your wrists extended or fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right (for it is about to receive a King) and cupping your palm, so receive the Body of Christ; and answer: “Amen.” Also Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Council of Constantinople in Trullo shows the Eastern rites were receiving by hand as by hand was deemed more reverent than vessels of gold or silver. This was because “The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ.” The proof the SSPC use doesn’t mention communion by tongue. They use evidence of priests giving communion, which is Catholic teachings, and then twists that to make it mean something about the person receiving the Eucharist when it isn’t the context.
@@paulmualdeave5063 You really ought to read the rest of the quote from Cyril. It explains how you are supposed to anoint your eyes and ears with the Precious Blood when receiving it. Not all ancient practices ought to be retained.
@@littlerock5256 You are ignorant of Church history. Communion in the hand was the norm for the Church for the first 800 years in both the east and the west. Such information is readily available to those who wish to know the truth.
@littlerock5256 Communion in the hand was practiced for the first 800 years of Christendom. It's a historical fact, and if you had any sense of curiosity, you could easily research this on the web
No one can desecrate the perfect Christ. Those who abuse the Eucharist in the hand, will receive the judgment they ask for. If this is the only or best reason to forbid communion in the hand, then the position is extraordinarily weak. Receiving on the tongue is an innovation, an old innovation, but still an innovation. Jesus didn’t place the unleavened bread (Body) on the tongue of those at the Last Supper, nor did He withhold the cup (Blood). Both of these small-t traditions should not be elevated over receiving in the hand or partaking of the cup.
@ so you’re saying only priests can eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life? No, Jesus was expecting them to offer to others what Christ offered to them.
Outstanding! If we want to go back to the beginning then we ignore thevtrachings of the faith, no Eucharistic Adoration, no Rosary and nophysical Church. What has Communion in the hand brought us but care free attitudes and abuses?! Thank you for a fantastic video!
@GeraldHunt-i5q the Church is three pillars of the faith: Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Teaching Magisterium. Tradition is the absolute foundation of the Church. We should hang on to our organic tradition by our teeth! It's what Luther hated most about the Church. Traditions have been organic over time as we have understood more over time, like the Marian Dogmas. Give me tradition over change 100%.
That is a false statement. Communion in the hand has brought me closer to God, by following Jesus' command to "take and eat." Nothing in the bible about "Receiving.". It is so beautiful and holy.
I am the only one who receives on the tongue in any Church I go. One Priest refused to give it on the tongue because he didn’t want to get Covid again. I stand out like a sore thumb, but I believe Priests hands have been consecrated for this purpose.
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”" Why is is wrong to take it and eat it?
nothing is intrinsically wrong about taking the host and eating it it's wrong because current Church disciplines forbid it and it is wrong to violate Church discipline
Did you not watch the video? Communion in the hand cheapens the experience of receiving Our Lord and leads to abuses. If you see him as the King of the Universe, he should be treated as with highest regard of royalty .
As a Byzantine Catholic, I can say that neither we nor the Orthodox take the Eucharist in the hand. The priest uses a golden spoon. Either way, your hands should never be anywhere near it.
You will never be "worthy" to receive Jesus. "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." You are only able to be properly disposed to receive Him.
Well here's a thought: the Latin Extraordinary Mass was granted to occur on an indult. To state or allude that an indult is being granted 'for the sake to make an abuse normative' is truly a false teaching. The Magesterium has granted this as a valid way of reception of holy communion as canon law allows the local ordinary and/or the council of bishops to decide such matters. This is a failure to understand the nature of an indult or the Church's governance with the bishop having full authority (within the teachings and councils of the Chruch) over the sacraments.
✝️I'm retired at 47, This video here reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to having over 75,000 biweekly profit, a honest partner and a good daughter full of love 🤍
I raised 75k and Maria Luisa Clare is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Maria L. Clare is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good husband, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
I know that woman(Maria Luisa Clare) If you were born and raised in new York you'd know too, No doubt she is the one that helped you get where you are!!
The idea of doing Communion in the hand or Mass in Aramaic because of it being done in the earliest parts of the Church is antiquarianism which Pope Pius XII warned against.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q trads in this video are being defined as people who simply follow the magisterium, I think you mean to say the radical traditionalists. That's why the focus of the video is not to discuss something that changed, but to discuss why is it that people are massively going against official doctrine, as if it had been changed, when it fact it has not. If it had been officially changed, then it would be ok. The problem is disobeying and changing by ourselves something that has not been changed by the magisterium, and teaching others to also disobey.
You say it shouldn’t be a competition who finds the most obscure ancient text, to which I agree but just one sentence earlier you made it into a competition on who is a true faithful disciple of the Lord. I am in favor of a lot of traditional practices which have begun to slip away but communion on the tongue isn’t something I personally want to do. Why? Because it grosses me out. On the one hand that is a totally profane reason but I also want to cherish and long for the Eucharist, not lowkey dread it’s reception. Some people say that crumbs are getting wasted, when you receive it on the hand but the hosts we are getting do not get broken, they already come in the small round form and a main reason for why we no longer use every day bread for the holy communion was precisely to drastically reduce crumbling. So that really is a manufactured issue imo. I have great respect for people who choose to receive communion on the tongue, I think this is an amazing sign of reverence but that doesn’t mean that receiving it on the hand isn’t. And as for the argument that it is supposed to be an exception: The same is true for the TLM, so if one is cherry-picking for themself, they shouldn’t criticize others for picking different cherries. I agree with your criticism of the priest who argued against receiving it on the tongue with this old text, that is a pretty wild take from him but with the video title and some parts of the video, you also attacked communion on the hand, even tho your pinned comment says that this wasn’t the intention, and that part I am obviously disagreeing with. Peace to all and glory to God.
You receive the Eucharist. You don’t take it. It’s only recently I really understood this. Never on the hand. Only consecrated hands to touch God. No Eucharistic ministers. Period.
Yeah people think it's an appeal to tradition vs an appeal to novelty argument. No, my house and i have held that really should only be the priest handling the Eucharist because those men have consecrated hands we as the lay do not... yes I USED to be an EM when i attended novos ordro, no longer. The only exception would be bringing Christ to my wife if she is sick in absence of a priest who can do it and only because i am priest of domestic church and have spirifual authority and you bet your butt im nervous as a bunch of israelites transporting the arc of the covenant over a river and seeing it slip a little...... Imo, novos ordo vs tradition especially in regards to this is very "tit for tat" theyre only aaying that with the strawman argument of appeal to tradition just as a way to "own the chuds", i despise how politics permeates everything now. But we pray for everyone for a conversion of heart
One thing I would point out for those who receive in the hand. How many check for visible particles after receiving? I’ve never seen a single person check for visible particles after receiving. And the teaching is that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in every visible particle of the Holy Eucharist. So if you’re not checking for visible particles after receiving in the hand. You’re most likely dropping them on the floor to be trampled by others. If you Truly loved Jesus. Would you not take the upmost care to make sure not a single particle falls to the floor?
I used to check, when I received that way. I also once saw a nun (at a parish that used crumbly baked bread instead of hosts) go and start picking a rather large quantity of crumbs out of the carpet, where people were walking. That stuck with me.
@@duathellto1460you’d probably be the only one. I’ve been to many churches over the world. And I’ve never seen anyone else do it. I never thought about it myself until seeing videos by Gabriel Castillo about the Holy Eucharist. And yea seeing someone picking up crumbs will make you think of it early on. And I wonder why they used leavened bread. The only rite that I personally know that uses leavened bread is the Byzantine rite. They also use intinction, and you must receive on the tongue.
@@jeanvaljean16 It wasn't leavened bread, it was just baked into flat circles that were broken, rather than pressed into hosts. But it did resemble Byzantine bread in texture and probably should have been received from a spoon. I know I'm not the only one, because I've seen others checking under the same circumstances. But I don't generally watch other people receiving Holy Communion.
The whole “Jesus and the Apostles didn’t speak Latin,” is becoming very much akin to the “Jesus isn’t white;” and frankly I treat it with the same amount of disdain.
I imagine that you disdain many people. You are tight that rhetorical tricks are intellectualy dishonest, but the best is to concentrate on true debate over substantial material. In my standard Roman Missal here in Mexico, the ordinary of the mass and all the prayers are in Latin in an appendix. Since, in my day, Brooklyn high schools, including public ones, required Latin, I sometimes say Mass in Latin while on retreat. No one in my congregation has ever asked me to say Mass in Latin. Of course, I would never use the Tridentine rite, which has been supressed. I'm not a schismatic.
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy." [SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, POPE BENEDICT XVI] @@robertcoogan6421
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy." [SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, POPE BENEDICT XVI] @@robertcoogan6421
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy." [Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI]@@robertcoogan6421
"Approaching, therefore, do not come with your palms stretched out or with your fingers open; but make your left hand a throne for your right, since the latter is about to receive the King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, 'Amen.' Then, carefully sanctify your eyes by the touch of the holy body, and partake of it." Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD) giving instructions on how to receive communion (Catechetical Lectures 23:21). This appears to be the norm in the early church until Pope Leo the Great: "One receives the body of the Lord in his mouth, and the priest places it there." Pope Leo the Great (440 AD; Sermon 91:3)
I highly recommend to everyone read Your Life, Your Game by Keezano. I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read. Amen💟✝️
Okay, so upon your recommendation I read MEMORIALE DOMINI. I see the study you reference is in the document itself. It looks like two thirds of the bishops who participated were against communion in the hand. Basically that's what you said. Well, you know that was a poll, right? And that polls aren't mandatory and can be significantly off from real voting tallies? (Recent U.S. elections show as much.) This same document goes on to say that conferences of bishops can request communion in the hand with a two-thirds majority vote--and then might receive permission from the Vatican which would review the request. So, without more information, and this document seems to say that the votes were secret, the final counts went TWO-THIRDS the opposite way. It totally blows your argument. Two thirds (or more, it's unknown) of bishops requested that communion in the hand become an option for the faithful. Maybe their own desires and fears were revealed by the polling. But when it came time to act for the spiritual welfare of their people, they voted to try it. And it seems the conferences which requested permission, and received permission, and tried it now for ... what...decades, never went back. Be honest: this should be part of the discussion if MEMORIALE DOMINI is brought up at all.
There is no debate, receiving in the hand is valid because Holy Church has declared it to be valid and anyone disputing that is out of order. The tradition of "receiving on the tongue" almost certainly did not happen at the Last Supper but is an extra public display of piety that crept in later. And while it valid to receive that way, it is not compulsory and it is almost certainly not the way that the Apostles received.
Furthermore, orthodox Catholic clerics whom I regard as reliable sources of Catholic knowledge have told me that the American indult to receive Holy Communion in the hand while standing was granted illicitly. ☝🏻
I prefer communion on the tongue and want to do everything to prevent profanation of our Lord, however there are drawings and descriptions of communion in the hand going back to the first century. They called it making a 'throne' with your hands.
They also triple-dunked days-old infants in muddy rivers for their baptism. Just because something was done one way first, doesn’t mean it was the best possible way to do it.
I’m Byzantine Catholic and we only receive one way and it’s not in our hands but I thought in the Roman rite the communicant is supposed to put the host in their mouth in front of the priest so he sees you do it so why are they allowing people to walk away with the host?
I think most priests are not well trained in how to kindly and firmly correct people who are doing things the wrong way, so in order to avoid hurt or irate parishioners, they simply do not correct such things. There often seems to be more of an emphasis on getting out of the way for the next person than on receiving Our Lord carefully and well.
Jésus dit:"PRENEZ et mangez, ceci est mon Corps" Son corps est rompu et livré aux mains des pécheurs. Il vient à nous dans note misère. Mains ou langue, ce sont des détails puisque Dieu regarde le coeur.
Watching the video more closely, she put it on her tongue before spitting it back out. The same thing could have happened had she received on the tongue outright. This isn’t a matter of receiving on the tongue or the hand, this is a matter of the ministers paying attention.
I'd go one further. If you believe in the idea that "holy communion" was intended for more people than the apostles at the last supper private meal, then I think you need to follow what the Gospels said. The Lord said "TAKE THIS all of you..." He would not have put it on their tongues. I think the recipient should take it out of the vessel themselves and eat it there and then before walking away. Anyone profaning the host would have it on their conscience. The priest should warn the congregation of this before communion. However, I think the sacrifice was made the next day in the cross and this was a private meal the day before for the apostles only. Communion is a memorial of that, as one way to remember Him.
Keep in mind that for some, they way they take the Eucharist is dependent on their physical capabilities. And a priest who insists they take it on the tongue without understanding these differences is not providing the host reverently. Not everybody is equal.
RE: meaning of *indult* for receiving on the hand. Both insults and dispensations are exceptions to cannot law, but there’s a massive distinction between the two. A dispensation is permission to not do something that is normally required, meaning the thing itself is good. An indult is permission to do something that is normally forbidden, meaning the thing itself is *bad*. Thus the indult for reception in the hand literally tells you it’s bad to receive in the hand, simply by virtue of being an indult!
This is very misleading...I'd encourage you to remove or correct your post. An indult is permission to do something that is not normative. The church can never give permission to do something bad.
Communion on the hand is not an abuse. It has been used here since at least 1970, and has since become the norm. I don't know why traditionalists keep bringing this up.
@@alhilford2345 A quick search of the history of the Catholic Church shows that communion on the hand was the norm for the first 800 years of the Church in both the east and the west.
*I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him,* $230k every 4weeks! | now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God's work and the church.
Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
I started pretty low, though, $5000 thereabouts. The return came massive. Joey is in school doing well, telling me of new friends he's meeting in school. Thank you Evelyn Vera, you're a miracle.
Wow...I know her too she is a licensed broker and a FINRA agent she is popular in US and Canada she is really amazing woman with good skills and experience.
There is no debate on this subject. Our bishops decide the practice of how to properly receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who presumes to know any one way is the only acceptable way to receive Him can take it up with their bishop.
Brother, I agree with you 100%!! I’m a revert, and now see so many abuses liturgically and practically of clergy and laymen that concern me as I grow in my faith and journey with Jesus. Let us pray for them, for each other, and for Holy Mother Church! ¡Viva Cristo Rey! 🙏🏼🎚🔥💪🏼
Hundreds of english martyrs went to the grave to resist the very same reforms present in the novus ordo. Think on that when you defend the modern practices
Yet more Eucharistic miracles are present in these novus ordo masses. 🤔 Also in ancient times albeit it was a bit different receiving on the hand wasn’t entirely new either.
@vaderkurt7848 "Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe". The fact Eucharistic miracles are apparently occurring more frequently, to me, shows God is trying to correct two sides of the same problem of lack of faith: 1) Some "traditionalists" do not believe the Novus Ordo is legitimate, and God is showing that He is indeed still present, and 2) There is a catastrophic lack of belief among the "Novus Ordo" side of things in the Real Presence in general, which explains all the abuses like Communion in the hand, which God is trying to correct. The increased presence of these miracles which demonstrate the most basic truths of our faith, I'd argue, is NOT a sign we're on the right track. Respectfully, and maybe I'm reading too much into your comment, but it sounds like you're being the exact "esoteric" person Brian was talking about in this video, by saying "In ancient times people received on the hand, so the modern practice isn't new". It sounds like you know that even this ancient practice still wasn't like the modern practice; the recipients had a napkin on their hands, and they bent their head down to consume the Host without directly touching it. Obviously this is magnitudes more reverent than the modern practice of plucking it up with your hand, potentially not even consuming before heading back to the pews. And even then, as Brian said, we don't even need to have this debate, it's been settled by Christ's Church -- Communion on the tongue is the normal practice, and just because things used to be done a certain way does not mean that way is better just by being older. As the knowledge of the Lord and piety within His Church increases, new things will build upon the old, and that's really what Tradition is. To say "well, actually, in some instances in the past..." in regards to older practices is just nitpicking and missing the larger point.
Why do you think that might be? Such miracles take place in order to convert people to belief in the Real Presence. It’s precisely in Novus Ordo Masses that this is necessary, where belief in the Real Presence is undermined by the deficient form of the Mass
I dont think that receiving on the tongue is the oldest form, but I usually receive Holly Communion this way. Except when I'm sick (have flu), then I prefer to receive on the hand. I'm from Lithuania, Vilnius. In our parish both forms are allowed (some people receive on the tongue kneeling)and this question isn't an issue at all. The most significant thing is that the majority of Holly Mass atendants receive Holly Communion. People really care about Holly Communion in our parish.
I never thought about people actually stealing the host before, I've heard the other arguments and always thought they smacked of scrupulosity , but this reason presented above actually makes sense to me, yeah harder to steal it after it's been placed on your tongue 🤔
@@adventureinallthings It is no mistake that this verse occurs in the same chapter as John 6:54: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." I'd suggest reading John 6 again.
If it's an abuse as you claim then it's the bishops' problem who permit it. I remember I wrote a letter some years ago to the CDF at the Vatican and got a reply saying reception in the hand or the tongue are both valid, echoing Redemptionist Sacramentum (2004). Either the ordinary Magisterium can be trusted here or it cannot, which is it? The key distinction is not tongue or hand but reverence or irreverence
@@DukeOfEarl88 You realize you're a Protestant, right? You make grand proclamations as if you speak for God and his Church, despite no trust in the Holy Spirit. Jesus seeks friendship then full Communion with us as fully embodying what he demonstrated is possible. The Last Supper was full of laughter and slouching on each other. These people obsessed with formality are clinging to something far more superficial.
Unless you lick your hands afterwards, your brushing particles of Our Lord and Savior all over your clothing. This irreverence is why 70% of church-going Catholics stopped believing in the Real Presence.
Confessional Lutheran here. We practice either method of receiving, but I actually prefer to receive the bread in the hand, and find that to be more meaningful. Just as Christ submitted himself helplessly into the hands of Mary, Joseph, Simeon, Anna and others, and later into the hands of the Romans to be killed, He once more offers himself freely into our hands at the altar. Also, unlike Pilate who thought he could wash his own hands of the murdering of God, I know that the only way to wash His blood off of my hands is, well, with His blood. No, I don't pour the wine over my own hands, that would be an abuse. But it is not an abuse to receive in the hands: "Take, and eat." I just cherish the moment I get to cradle His body in my hands, and ponder how all the saints felt who were blessed to interact with Him physically during his walk on earth. I do not understand the argument that we are unworthy to receive in the hands, and therefore must receive on the tongue. Is my tongue more worthy than my hand? Has my tongue sinned less than my hand? Does Christ come to us because we are worthy? Did he touch lepers because they were worthy? Obviously I am not worthy on my own merits, that is true. I do not claim to be. But He has declared us clean, redeemed, purified by his blood--the very blood we are receiving at the altar. Yes, some may seek to abuse the sacrament, but "abusus non tollit usum." I am not doing something wrong by taking and eating, as the Lord commanded. To constrain anyone from doing that is an abuse in and of itself. As to those who would abuse it, "forgive them, for they know not what they do."
I've grown so tired of this debate. Not even because this video is wrong, it's that it's entirely in the right, and the most people can come up with to defend the pro-hand position is "Well both are allowed!!" Or the esoteric arguments you present in this video of "Well ackshually, in some old practices..." Or the arugment "Isn't this PHARASAICAL?" Or the worst of all, "Why do you CARE so much?? Let people receive as they want!" Just totally missing the point and acting like aloofness is not only something to be celebrated, but that actually it's better to ignore the real points being made for the sake of appearing intellegent and nuanced. On-the-hand was an exception, one which was allowed to encourage time to adjust to receiving on the tongue, a grace period which has been totally ignored and abused. If you're gonna argue it's actually okay, real arguments need to be brought forth.
There is no debate. The Church has the power to authorize reception of the Eucharist on the tongue and in the hand. This they have done. There is plenty of historical evidence that the early Church received on the hand. As far as I have read, Jesus did not offer the bread ( his body) on the tongues of his apostles during the last supper. Some of you may say it is only because they were to be priests, but we are all a part of a royal priesthood. I guarantee that many of those who so stridently hold to reception on the tongue probably shouldn't be receiving the Eucharist in the first place.
What a moronic response. You really need self reflection calling someone liberal because of a difference of opinion and an actual fact. You’re the one that is being liberal.
My concern about receiving communion in the hand is the fact that particles of the body and blood of Christ are unknowingly being haphazardly discarded. The altar server used to have the paten under the recipient’s chin to catch any particles. The priest would then devoutly transfer them to the chalice and reverently consume them at the end of communion time. Too many people today question the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. More reference should be given to our Lord.
I'm in a situation where I realize that communion by the mouth is the most proper way to receive the Eucharist, but not a single person in my church does so in this way, and I'm afraid that deep down, I'm only trying to look more "traditional" or "spiritual" in front of my peers. part of me wished communion was done in a more private setting somehow because of how self conscious I can get instead of simply focusing on God, but I realize when your part of a large congregation thats simply not practical. any advice for trying to break the mold?
If your fear isn't that you WILL be prideful in your piety compared to others, but only that you'll APPEAR to be prideful in your piety compared to others, then there's no danger. Who cares what others think? If anything, maybe someone will see your piety and it will encourage them to reflect on if they're being pious themselves. Receive on the tongue, it's entirely your right, though as another comment said, perhaps you can talk to the priest before Mass, just so he's not caught off-guard. But again, you're entirely within your right to receive in this way, so even if the priest, God forbid, says something against it, I would still encourage insisting on receiving on the tongue (unless of course that kind of insistence would result in you feeling prideful). I'll pray for you, good luck!
Outside of the attempt at appealing to the oldest thing, or a letter from St Jerome I have yet to hear a good argument in the affirmative for reviving Holy Communion on the hand. What is the benefit to receiving that way over receiving on the tongue?
I want to make it clear that I am not condemning Catholics who receive on the hand here. This is a reply to a cleric who claimed that it was better to receive on the hand and that this was the more "traditional" form
Support the channel by visiting: brianholdsworth.ca/help-me
But you kind of are Brain, and because these matters are not within your authority to judge.
You have authority over this matter and the Church has a History of is use.
You in FACT put catholics down as not as "catholic " as you for receiving on the hand. You clearly ard confused between tradition and Tradition which is ironic considering you call yourself a traditionalist. Whether by indult or not POPES allow communion in the hand and so you need to stop laying guilt trips on catholics who receive that way. If you want it to change write your bishop or the pope. Stop causing division over this matter and acting like a superior catholic.
Thank you Brian, for upholding the dignity of Our Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament.
I don’t think it’s better to receive on the hand. I do wonder why however, at seminary before I discerned out, none of the men received on the tongue, and we were told to receive on the hand.
Even the more traditional guys would follow the directive of the rector/seminary.
Before communion on the hand, Satanists used to put alum in their mouths to dry up their saliva. Then they could receive communion on the tongue and then later remove it from their dry mouth and use it in a black mass.
Excellent. I’m a catholic Priest and anecdotally I believe abuse of the Eucharist is at an all time high. At every funeral I do that a mass is celebrated for I have to remind people with chewing gum that they will not receive the Eucharist if they come forward. And I’ve had to chase people down to the pews to consume it or else give it back. One young woman confronted me when I asked for it back. Which makes me wonder as to why she put it in her bag. It needs to be addressed. I’ve also started to put out kneelers for mass and allow those who wish to receive on the tongue kneeling to do so and the amount of people who do so now is amazing. Great witness. Thanks Brian.
Thank you Father for looking out!
Thank you for putting out kneelers. I desire to kneel for communion but without them I’m afraid of accidentally knocking into the priest. I’m blessed to be near parishes that use the altar rail. As you use them, you will find more and more people coming to desire to kneel. Bless you!
Thank you much Father. You are in a difficult position of which I truly feel for you and all priests as the responsibility is great. I recommended, (although not sure if it helps) to state before the distribution of the Eucharist to announce that "anyone receiving Communion must be Catholic in the state of grace with the church". The priest in my parish has put out kneelers as well and so many more people are now kneeling. Also he announced that if one cannot kneel that they can stand and still receive the Eucharist on the tongue. I often think if I am sinning as I wander about all the little particles that may be on the floor and if I should remove my shoes before going in the Communion line. I know it sounds funny. God bless
You obviously ain’t a Maronite Priest. You sound phony to me. A good Maronite can handle these types situations with class. No need to chase after and scare women with threats of taking their communion back. Who the hell gives you the right to decide who deserves communion? You don’t deserve to handle communion. You ain’t a Maronite.
Do not give the blessed Sacrament to those who don't reply "AMEN".
That's 95% of them right there.
Everyone needs to be vigilant for Eucharistic abuses: many years ago, the pastor in my parish noticed a woman turn away quickly after receiving, and thought he saw her remove the host from her mouth. He stopped the procession and called the ushers (God bless the KCs) who escorted her back to him. The lady was mentally disturbed and told father that she wanted to take Communion to her dog who was sick at home. Father obviously didn’t allow that to happen…
At my FSSP parish our Sunday ushers stand against the walls where the communicants pass by, watching with white gloves on ready to intervene in if abuse should occur.
Oh my, today at a funeral a lady received with her hands and started to walk away. The priest stopped what he was doing and gestured to those around her to get her attention. She is clueless and a little off. (I know her). This isn't something you put in your pocket for a later time.
That poor lady, she was doing the best for her dog with her mind at the level it was, I hope they explained to her kindly and loved her because she was trying to bring healing to her dog the best way she knew with her mental disorder.
@@Rmezzi2 He did-he was kind, but stern enough to get through to her that the Eucharist is believing Catholic humans only.
Satanists also use these in their blasphemous rituals.
When you start to allow exceptions to the rules, the rules slowly disappear and the exceptions become the rules. Pray for our Church.
The rule is it’s allowed. The case is closed.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Not for long.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 actually the case is clearly not closed
The Catholic Church is NOT a DEMOCRACY !!!
@@michaelspeyrer1264 the case is by no means closed
I Don’t Have a Latin Mass anywhere near me. Also, I’m disabled due to several strokes and heart conditions. I can’t drive. I go to the regular Mass in my Parish and I fall on my knees and receive on the tongue. My first Holy Communion was with alter rails, kneeling, and on the tongue. I am absolutely NOT worthy to receive my LORD in my hands. No, I won’t ever do it again.
You are no more worthy to receive on the tongue
Me neither
Angel. Jesus wants you to receive Him no matter how!
Please don’t injure yourself. 😢
@@TheresaCronin-kc6wz Even if we are in mortal sin?
I was taught that only the priest was ordained to touch the host. We would receive communion on the tongue and as we did the second priest would hold a platen Under our chins so no crumbs would fall on the ground. That’s how sacred it was. The priest would then take the platen and scrape the crumbs into the chalice with the wine before drinking it.
I go to a conservative Catholic Church with an altar railing, and people kneel to receive communion on the tongue. I feel that it is s wonderful experience having communion in that way.
The priest was in error. A lot of error had crept in (as it always does over time) and one of the reasons for Vat II was to correct this.
Not just "was," but Is.
@@philiphumphrey1548What exactly was the "error"?
A dude with a ponytail, bushy beard, and dressed in jeans and sneakers is our Eucharistic minister at Mass.
I was raised Catholic, but turned Greek Orthodox (but in no way opposed to my Catholic friends). I think the big distinction is “taking” versus “receiving” communion. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the priest will give you the Eucharist on a spoon, feeding you the gift of life. In no way do I handle the Eucharist with my hands - it is given to me as a gift, and there is a certain beauty in that. From my youth, I was taught in the Catholic Church to receive the Eucharist in my hand. But it feels more like “taking” versus “receiving”. Being fed the Eucharist from a trusted priest hits your heart a little bit different. You are surrendering to your spiritual advisor and to Christ himself to receive the gift of life. In no way am I denigrating receiving the Eucharist by hand, but receiving by mouth communicates “surrender” a little better.
He who eats outside the body has profaned. Your communion is illicit because Greek orthodox are in schism.
The last time I checked the Bible, Jesus said "take and eat." He never to my recollection said to "receive.". Why is wrong to go back to the original Tradition of receiving Communion in your hands that been sanctified by Jesus' wounds from being nailed to the Cross? Our hands are as sacred as our tongue.
@HaroldTheSloth Beautiful sentiment. Recieving on the tongue for me = no worries of mortifying accidents, worrying that my hands aren't clean enough or having to ever question if it might be offensive.
@@tomredd9025Our hands are not consecrated like a priests hands are. Also Jesus said that to the apostles, his direct disciples or the first priests, which we definitely are not even close to in holiness or authority.
@@tomredd9025 Whoa. Our HANDS have been sanctified by Christ's wounds?
I thought it was our SOULS.
I will always take Communion kneeling and on the tongue. 🙏🙏🙏🙏
That is great. Don’t ever change on that.
Since I didn't hear the sermon in question, I can't say for certain, but I think there is a possibility you might have missed the priest's point. And that comes back to the Catholic stereotypes you mention at the beginning. There are --- MANY --- traditionalists, here on UA-cam and I'm sure in real life too!, who do hang on to Latin for Latin sake. These are the ultraradicalised, only the SSPX is the True Church, the new mass is a satanic - Lutheran prayer service, etc, etc. These are Catholics who will both straight up tell you that you're a heretic if you go to a "novus ordo parish" on the one hand and will proudly proclaim that to be excommunicated by fake pope Bergoglio is a signal honour.
The point that priest was really making was literally that small-t traditions change! It wasn't some obscure Eastern Orthodox council that recommended taking the Eucharist in the hand. It was none other than major Church Father St Cyril of Jerusalem who, writing in the 300s, described communion in the hand as an early practice. This is not Gnosticism. This is not some esoteric teaching that a small cabal of inner sanctum priests lord over an ignorant congregation. This is literally stuff that you can look up on Catholic Answers.
Frankly, I'm tired of the ubertraditionalists and their rhetoric. I'm as tired of them as I am of ugly churches, clown masses, and other modern abuses like forcing people to receive in the hand when they wish to receive on the tongue. It's just abuse in a different direction.
As for why we're still talking about communion in the hand --- it's not because of the indult per se. The enemy loves it when Catholics turn against Catholics.
Communion in the hand in modern times is inextricably conflated with the loss of belief in the Real Presence.
Communion in the hand was emaciated by the logical progression towards communion in the tong.
@@StanleyPinchak -- This is a false conflation. Disbelief -- or belief -- in the Real Presence is a function of faith formation and catachesis.
We could be receiving the Eucharist through a straw and that wouldn't affect either disbelief or belief.
@padriacbrown6718 I love the way you worded this comment! Completely agree! Praying for our continual conversions as Catholics.
Communion on the hand is really only a thing in the US & Canada. This doesn’t happen in Latin America or even Spanish masses here in the US. And guess what ONLY the priests and the deacon give communion ZERO extraordinary ministers. Whatever that means. They are more serious and I would say there societies are more Christian than ours.
I saw someone walk away with a host at Mass. I confronted that person and had them stop and consume. That's enough reason to stop the practice. Lay hands are not consecrated. In the old Baptism rite, the infants tongue was, prepared to receive Communion with special prayers of exorcism and consecration. Post Vatican II rites stopped those practices. Why? I left my local NO parish because the elderly 70s era priest refuses Communion on the tongue due to "slobber"....his exact words. I found another parish that uses the altar rails to kneel and receive on the tongue.
Your priest is wrong. The faithful always have the right to receive on the tongue.
Me too, I drive across town to attend a more reverent Mass.
I wish we had the altar rails too. 😕
No it’s not. You are a liar and a modernist.
@Roman-Labrador "Quite common." Sure it is.
As a child, I remember receiving the Eucharist on my tongue, but, by the time I was confirmed, many encouraged receiving the Eucharist reverently in the hand. As an adult, I have always received communion reverently in the hand because I feel that it is safer. I’m fairly tall, and feel there is a greater likelihood that the Eucharist will fall out the other way. I have never witnessed anyone taking the consecrated host out of their mouth and putting it in their pocket, but someone who is either that irreverent or has dark intentions would have no problem doing that whether they received on the tongue or the hand. When I was taught how to receive the Eucharist in the hand, I was taught to do it with great reverence, always placing it in my mouth before walking back to my pew. There have always been abuses at the Lord’s Table. Saint Paul even writes to warn the church about them, I believe, in one of his epistles to the Church as Corinth. Beyond teaching Catholics the proper way to receive communion, I don’t see how the Church can safeguard against these abuses. How do we know who is coming forward to the altar? Ultimately, God will judge those who blaspheme or who take communion in an unworthy manner.
I don't think the claim is that communion on the tongue will absolutely safeguard against abuses. There are obviously levels to which safety measures will work better than others, so we should adopt the more reliable (and more reverent) of the options.
If you knees are strong enough you can always kneel and receive😊, I do
Good morning. And have you meditated on the particles of the Host, have you looked for information about this? How do you check your hand and your fingers they both touch God.
@rafaeljonathanmonterrosoca8400 I think you're overthinking it. The host is meant to be consumed. If we have less stages of interruption before that happens, the better.
It's a duty and responsibility of Catholic clergy - especially the priests - to guard the Eucharist against desecration. Keeping it out of the hands of the laity is the best singular practice of guarding. Furthermore, I'd expect any sufficiently rational Catholic layman to not want the responsibility of guarding the Eucharist against desecration. ☝🏻
I have received the Holy Eucharist while kneeling on the tongue. However, I do acknowledge that receiving on hand is allowed by the Catholic Church. Just receive the Blessed Eucharist with reverence either on hand or tongue. Peace.
It's even better when it's accompanied by kazoos, bongo drums, banjos, and other innovations. What's best is when all kinds of people handle it.
@lzcontrol , don't get me wrong. I love if the communion on the tongue while kneeling becomes the norm again. I will always receive my Lord that way. But the Church approved communion on hand as well. As Catholic, we should accept the magisterium.
"And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost." [John 6:12]
The Council of Saragossa, 380, excommunicated anyone who dared to continue to receive Communion in the hand.
@hanmirz4803 Priests' hands are specifically consecrated in order to administer the sacraments, ESPECIALLY the Eucharist. My hands aren't consecrated, so no Holy Communion in the hand for me.
Cardinal Burke wrote a book about the need for reverence for Our Lord in the Eucharist and the need to end the practices of receiving in the hand and receiving while knowingly in the state of grave mortal sin
Everyone who voted for pro-abortion Kamala is in a state of mortal sin.
I’m sorry but Burke is wrong. Communion in the hand dies not equal irreverence for Holy Communion.
That is a ridiculous and baseless assumption.
First off, it's Cardinal Burke (not just Burke), who is a theologian and a priest, which makes him an authority, not you. Secondly, he's just one of thousands of priests and saints who've said the same thing over the 2 millennium of the Church. Several other comments bring up other examples. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Fulton Sheen, Padre Pio, etc) The group pushing communion in the hand is a small and mostly modern (post Vatican II/1970s) group.
Thirdly, it's ironic that this issue was brought up in the video.
@PNP96-l1n Communion on the tongue is an innovation.
@@fantasia55 Irrelevant to the conversation
For me, it's an act of obedience and submission to our Lord. My preferred way without thinking was to receive the Eucharist in hand. However, I started to recieve the Eucharist on the tongue, precisely because I didn't want to receive it in that fashion. That's just my walk with Christ though, and a small way to die to myself, my selfish pride. God bless you all.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem said “When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cateches. On this authority, Paul vi said that properly catechized groups could receive in this manner.
That has nothing to do with the modern practice of Communion on the hand.
@@edukaeshnI agree with you, but could you explain more why it has nothing to do with the modern practice?
@@teresasnamesake4784 In the mode of reception you are referencing, the commonly accepted practice was for the faithful to have the Eucharist placed in their cupped right hand with fingers together so as to not drop Sacred Fragments on the ground; they did not touch the Eucharist with their fingers. They would receive Communion with their mouths directly from the palms of their hands while bowing reverently, and they were supposed to receive the Host completely, minding not to allow fragments to fall. The change to Communion on the tongue (with a paten) was in part due to the awareness that it is the best way to keep Sacred Fragments from falling to the ground.
In the mode of reception you are referencing, the commonly accepted practice was for the faithful to have the Eucharist placed in their cupped right hand with fingers together so as to not drop Sacred Fragments on the ground; they did not touch the Eucharist with their fingers. They would receive Communion with their mouths directly from the palms of their hands while bowing reverently, and they were supposed to receive the Host completely, minding not to allow fragments to fall. The change to Communion on the tongue (with a paten) was in part due to the awareness that it is the best way to keep Sacred Fragments from falling to the ground.@@teresasnamesake4784
In the mode of reception you are referencing, the commonly accepted practice was for the faithful to have the Eucharist placed in their cupped right hand with fingers together so as to not drop Sacred Fragments on the ground; they did not touch the Eucharist with their fingers. They would receive Communion with their mouths directly from the palms of their right hands while bowing reverently, and they were supposed to receive the Host completely, minding not to allow fragments to fall. The change to Communion on the tongue (with a paten) was in part due to the awareness that it is the best way to keep Sacred Fragments from falling to the ground.
Brian, I show your previous video about this to my RCIA students each year. This one is phenomenal as well. Thank you! So succint and calm. much appreciated
I’m new to Catholicism. I want to one day participate. To answer your question of “why wouldn’t anyone want to receive it in the hand” the reason I was hoping to receive in the hand (as I seen that is what they did for the kids but not the adults) is because I have extreme trauma and CPTSD. To have to have someone put something in my mouth is incredibly distressing and EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT it feels inappropriate to me because of my past experiences. When I instead could have it in my hand that is a great relief. I don’t understand why it can’t just be a requirement to eat it or put it in our mouths ourselves right there in-front of who is giving it to us.
I’m not asking for anyone to weigh in on this please, I am just letting him know why
Thank you for sharing! I receive on the tounge, but you bring up an important perspective 🤍.
It’s my obligation to weigh in to your comment because truth must always prevail our wants. We all need to encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to surrender their fears, doubts and anxieties to the Lord. We can’t shoulder that burden but the Lord can and commands us to! Matt 11: 28-30. God Bless sister, I pray that you may be set free.
“Truth”, if you believe receiving on the tongue is the only way you can receive you’re not speaking truth it’s just what you yourself perceive as truth even though it has been accepted by the church. You base this truth on absolutely nothing but tradition.
Watching that lady take the Eucharist like that was painful to watch. 🥲
And receiving on the tongue is no guarantee against taking him out of one's mouth and pocketing the host.
😢😢😢
@@climbinghumility "This is my body. Take it and fondle it carelessly with a bored expression on your face" is her favorite verse of the Bible.
What bothers me is the nibbling around the edge. It's not a cookie. You don't chew it, either. And intincted wafers pressed in the hand are not the best alternative, it just gets "blood on your hands".
@@MNkno -- Yet ironically, this is exactly what Jesus said. Ho trôgôn mou ten sarka ... echei zoen aiônion.
The one gnawing and nibbling my flesh has eternal life.
I’ve had priests refuse to place the Eucharist on my tongue.
Try going to another church. I went to a different church one time and when I opened my mouth to receive communion, the priest looked disgusted, and just threw it in there. 🙄. I have not been back to that church.
Don't go back to those priests.
Your foolishness and pride is the problem. Bread of life can be accepted with only pure heart.
"And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?" [Matthew 7:3]
@@luciamacakova7516
Ibid.
In Brazil high clerics claim that receiving in the tongue is "medieval". Please pray for us
Communion on the tongue was a medieval innovation.
@@fantasia55 we got a parrot here
@@saskilla1945Can you state any sources to prove him wrong?
@@andrefouche9682 Can you state any source to prove him right?
@@PaulDo22 You mean to show that receiving on the tongue started in misieval times and that Jesus didn't serve the Apostles on their tongues?
From the GIRM
160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.
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 norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.
The Roman Missal: Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II, Third Typical Edition. (Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 50.
Thank you.
Why is the norm to receive standing? Where did that change originate?
And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost. [John 6:12]
Thank you for addressing this crucial topic. I’m a Catholic priest and this is a matter I feel very strongly about, as I sense that the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand has lead to an overall weakening of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to receive in the hand reverently; my question is ‘which way of receiving is likely to be most spiritually fruitful?’ One can receive the Lord physically, but it might bear no fruit spiritually, perhaps because of the presence of mortal sin, or the person receives unthinkingly and without fervour - Holy Communion is not like taking a pill which produces effects automatically. What happens at Holy Communion? God is giving Himself to us as our spiritual food. The way we receive therefore should express the fact that we are being fed and that this is not an ‘ordinary’ feeding activity for us. Receiving on the tongue from the hand of another [the priest] would convey those meanings well to us. Would receiving in the hand also convey them? Not as clearly, as there is still an element of ‘feeding ourselves,’ and we also tend to put out our hands to receive objects all the time - it’s nothing special.
Is it possible for us to become over-familiar with things, or people or activities? Without doubt. Can this even happen with sacred things? This is also true, unfortunately. When we receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, we should almost be in perpetual shock at the idea that God should come to us, humble Himself in this way for our sake. If we receive Holy Communion frequently, the danger of over-familiarity is ever present: we should adopt the manner of receiving which minimises this danger, and which reinforces our faith. If our manner of receiving Holy Communion is not sufficiently ‘different’ from our everyday activities, if it does not ‘jolt’ us into realising something special and out of the ordinary is happening, then the likelihood of over-familiarity increases. And as that increases, the fruitfulness of our Holy Communion decreases.
It is healthy for us to acknowledge that we are not God but created beings, and that we depend on God for life, for everything. We are not self-sufficient beings - only God is self-sufficient. If we receive on the tongue, it conveys the meaning that we are not self-sufficient - we depend on another, we do not control our lives, even that we are helpless without God. These meanings are present if we receive in the hand but here too, the symbolism is weaker as there is more of a control element on our part.
With kneeling, this allows the body to instruct the soul that something utterly out of the ordinary is taking place, that our relationship to God is not one of equality, that we are not receiving an ‘object’ but the very Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. It lends itself to fostering humility, gratitude and love which should lead to a fruitful reception of Holy Communion.
Your point about receiving in the hand being a possible occasion for irreverence or desecration is well made. Only yesterday I had to invite a person to receive on the tongue who had held out a hand covered in biro ink.
There's no debate, in the East Syriac Church. Our Church Father Mar Narsai explains in his commentaries, that we have to recieve the Lord our God on our hands, which are placed in a cross shape, by placing the right hand over the left. This is the norm traditionally followed in the Syro Malabar church and the Chaldean Catholic church.
That's another rite.
@lzcontrol Yes. My response was to some people who are trying to say that receiving communion on the hands is not "Catholic", because it doesn't align with the Roman rite tradition. But the Church is Catholic because it values both these traditions, not becausr it's Roman.
Thank you for posting this.
@@lzcontrol But the same Church!
that is based on wrong understanding of st. Cyril`s instructions - that way of a receivinig was for a priest. In eastern catholic tradition, priests receive that way and they give to the laity on the tongue.
Conditions for the indult to receive Holy Communion in the hand (number 3 is particularly interesting, given that no kneelers are provided for those that need them. number 5, given the rate of belief in the Real Presence in the US):
1) Communion in the hand had to already be presently in that country;
2) the bishops of that country had to have two-thirds majority vote in favor of Communion in the hand;
3) Communion in the hand should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional manner;
4) the way of introducing this must be done tactfully;
5) Communion in the hand should not cause the person to think it is just ordinary bread;
6) one must be careful to not allow profanation or any fragment to fall.
The instruction says that the comunicant place the host in his/her mouth in front of the priest. A malicious person can always take the host from their mouth if the intention is to steal the host. Sadly, this has been done for centuries. Why are people talking about this, when the general instruction spells out clearly the various ways for receiving communion, all of them approved by the magisterium. The regional council of bishops may refine the teaching, as when the USCCB repressed communion by intinction, which is the most common way to recieve under both species here in Mexico. We who are not of the magisterium should not arrogantly pretend that our prejudices are sounder than the Church teaching. The general instruction also says that, for the sake of expressing unity, we ought to conform to the norms of our community.
You’re the one who’s being arrogant here, looking down on those who want to show their reverence and Love for the Lord. Everyone of us has every right to receive Christ on the tongue kneeling.
I totally agree that communion on the tongue is the only respectful way. What I want to say is that it is possible to celebrate the holy sacrifice of the mass in the novus ordo form with great reverence. Many common practices being regularly seen in parishes were only intended to be optional at most. At my parish these are common practices in the novus ordo: communion on the tongue kneeling at the communion rail; the priest leads the mass ad orientam; the common prayers such as the Kylie and Sanctus in Gregorian chant; and more. Try streaming the Sunday English mass from St John Cantius parish in Chicago to see what this looks like.
“Only respectable way”. That is just your opinion. I don’t find receiving on the tongue more respectful just people wanting it the “traditional” way. If you receive on your hand or tongue in mortal sin or living a double life that’s what God cares about the most.
Great points.
I like to challenge the antiquarian argument of Holy Communion on the hand being the original practice, and therefore the more traditional way by appealing to such examples of how rules of sports have changed as ways to make improvements and/or in giving greater depth to the object of the game: e.g.: if the original practice is that which is the purest form/most traditional way, then basketball needs to go back to mounting peach baskets at each end; American football needs to return to using leather helmets, etc.
Authentic tradition is born from any change or addition leading to greater fulfillment and expression of the inherent meaning/essence of what is being practiced. In the case of Holy Communion, that posture which has the greatest capacity to express humility, childlike faith, and receptivity to the great gift of God’s love offered to us in the Eucharist is to kneel and receive from the hand of the priest directly in the mouth - as came to be understood and lived through living tradition over time and practice (just like steel basketball hoops on which nylon nets with open bottoms hang came to be organically through practice of playing the game and as a real development to improve the game of basketball).
I saw someone put Our Lord in a bag secretly after receiving and when they were confronted they denied it and actually got away with it. All the ushers became aware and formed a circle and started to pray fervently.
@@TheXone7 um.... you are obviously unaware of all the sacriliges that happen to consecrated hosts, including particpiating in satanic rituals, which is a very real and disturbingly common practice. Don't put rose-colored glasses on to the realities of life.
@ yes, that’s what I believe too. Especially since we all prayed together about it too
I have never once seen the desecration of the Body and/or Blood of Christ at a Latin Mass. Never. And I have been a priest for 48 years.
8:44 A friend of mine was a sacristan at the cathedral in St. Louis. He told me this one time these people received and just left the host in the pew. He didn't think it was malicious, they were foreigners, probably Chinese and I don't think they understood what was going on. But that's just another example of potential abuses you have with communion in the hand
Yes, when I serve one of the ways we assist is by purifying the hands of the priest by pouring water over them into a bowl so none of the host stays on his hands. Extraordinary ministries do something similar after mass. The lay people do not do this when they receive on the hand.
Whenever I witness someone mishandling the Host, I get a sharp pain in my chest, as if my heart were suddenly squeezed in a tourniquet. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.
Reparations and penance are needed
I sometimes gasp out loud. I’m so dismayed by it. I once was at a downtown Catholic Church on my city and the communion was being given out by a female layperson who accidentally dropped it on the floor. 😮🙄. I gasped in shock. And then I looked down. I couldn’t believe it. I then watched as she and the priest fumbled about trying to pick up this host. 😞
"Forgive for they know not what they do" is the perfect response. The church cannot restrain faithful Christians from receiving in the hands on the excuse that some would abuse His body. Do they think they should have prevented His body from falling into Pilate's hands?
@Roman-Labrador This is a valid point. You guys are essentially bragging about your own piety. This is not Christian behavior.
Accepting Communion with your hands became a practice, in the practical sense, as a means of preventing the transmission of disease.
It is not meant as an act of corruption. God wants us to use our common sense.
In the Orthodox Church both the body and blood are spooned into our mouth and we never get sick. The body and blood of Christ does not carry disease.
@KayRichards-k8q You have no idea what you're talking about.
So blood and body of the Lord will transmit diseases?! You have no faith of our Lord Jesus Christ!
@@hiuszenoom809 It’s not about the host. We eat in anyway so the method of receiving it makes no difference, should it be loaded with germs. It’s about the hand of the priest. I don’t want his fingers to be near my tongue, maybe touching it occasionally, especially not moments after he has been doing the same with other people‘s mouths.
This is exactly the complaint I had during COVID, with people terrified not just to be in church but to receive communion. It revealed to me how little faith most people really have, if they think the body and blood of Christ is a carrier of disease.
This is one of the few times I wish to intervene on the issue, as it's not a factional problem; it's an everyone-at-fault problem, including the clergy.
I don’t often make commentary to other Catholics or the faithful on matters like this because, to be honest, much of my time is spent correcting the waves of misinformation Protestants spread about the Church. It’s sometimes exhausting, as these misunderstandings about doctrine, history, and practice require constant attention. It's worse so when a former protestant after 3 years of hard study is also spending time correcting cradle Catholics.
First, let’s acknowledge that both forms of receiving the Eucharist-on the tongue and in the hand-are valid when done PROPERLY and with REVERENCE. This has been established by the Church’s Magisterium, and historically, we see both practices reflected in early Church teaching. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the faithful on how to receive in the hand, saying: “Make your left hand a throne for your right, as for that which is to receive a King. Then, hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ.” His imagery is profoundly reverent-it’s not a casual act, but one of awe and humility.
That said, concerns about sacrilege, abuse, or irreverence in receiving the Eucharist are completely valid. Desecration of the Eucharist, whether intentional or through carelessness, is a grave concern. Stories of people pocketing the host, walking away without consuming it, or even worse, using it for satanic rituals, are horrifying and heartbreaking. These incidents demand action-not just from the laity, but especially from our shepherds, and the clergy.
However, I don’t believe the solution lies in restricting the faithful who prefer to receive in the hand, especially if they do so with the utmost reverence. Instead, the Church as a whole needs to take a firmer, more active stance in safeguarding the Eucharist. This means:
Educating the faithful on the significance of the Eucharist should be a top priority as many Catholics, sadly, don’t even believe in the Real Presence. Without this foundational belief, it’s no surprise that some approach Communion casually or even irreverently. Catechesis must be prioritized at every level-homilies, RCIA, and even through broader parish initiatives. A well-formed Catholic knows that receiving the Eucharist is not just a ritual but an encounter with the living Christ.
It is worth noting that upon my studies I would read about the build-up of poor catechesis pre-reformation, one of the root causes of the Protestant Reformation was a widespread lack of catechesis among the faithful and even the clergy. This led to misunderstandings, abuses, and a vulnerability to doctrinal errors that fractured the Church. If we neglect proper formation today, we risk repeating those same mistakes, creating an environment where confusion and irreverence flourish. This isn’t just about the Eucharist; it’s about ensuring the faithful have a solid foundation in the faith itself.
Clergy vigilance and pastoral care: Priests, deacons, and Eucharistic ministers have a responsibility to protect the Blessed Sacrament. This includes being attentive to communicants, especially those who may be unfamiliar with the parish or exhibit strange behavior. Unfortunately, in some places, there is a tendency to focus attention on wealthy donors or influential parishioners (in my area at least), leaving others overlooked. True shepherds should care first and foremost for all souls entrusted to them, especially the lost, the vulnerable, and even those who may pose a risk of sacrilege. This doesn’t mean being uncharitable but being vigilant and prudent.
Unity over division: Rather than arguing over whether Communion in the hand or on the tongue is “better” or “more traditional,” let’s remember what unites us: the Eucharist itself. Yes, Communion on the tongue has become the normative traditional practice for many reasons, and Pope St. Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini articulated this beautifully. Yet we also have evidence from early Church history that Communion in the hand was practiced with deep reverence. The real question isn’t about the “form” but about the reverence and faith with which we receive. We must be careful not to divide ourselves over preferences, but instead focus on fostering a deeper love and understanding of the Eucharist in all forms.
Ultimately, I think it’s important to recognize that the Eucharist is a gift-a gift so profound that we can never fully comprehend it. It’s Christ’s own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity given to us for our salvation. Our priority should be ensuring that this gift is received with the dignity and reverence it deserves, not creating unnecessary divisions among the faithful.
I want to add that, as much as I value these discussions within the Church, we must be careful not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Much of my time is spent defending the Church against Protestant misunderstandings and accusations. Ironically, Protestants often mock our reverence for the Eucharist as “weird” or “idolatrous,” when in truth, their dismissal of the Real Presence has led to the very irreverence and fragmentation they accuse us of. For them, Communion has often become a mere symbolic act, stripped of its sacramental depth and connection to Christ’s sacrifice. As Catholics, we cannot afford to lose sight of what sets us apart-our faith in the Real Presence and our unwavering commitment to Christ in the Eucharist.
I apologize for the wordy post but, let’s ensure that whether we receive on the tongue or in the hand, it is done with deep faith, reverence, and love. And let’s call on our clergy to lead by example, safeguarding the Eucharist from abuse while fostering a renewed sense of awe and wonder among the faithful. Christ deserves nothing less.
The Council of Saragossa, 380, excommunicated anyone who dared to continue to receive Communion in the hand.
I’m thankful for your reply. God bless you
Modernism is the SYNTHESIS of all heresies - Pope Saint Pius X (Pascendi Dominici Gregis).
I appreciate the concern Brian has for people stealing hosts, it bothers me too, but you could pretty easily just keep the Eucharist in your mouth if you wanted to steal it….
again arguing from an edge case is not a strong argument. its weak whatabboutism.
With CITH you can see the problem plain as day and there is a mountain of evidence against this practice.
@ Oh I would say there are plenty of counter arguments against Brian’s position, I just happened to be countering one of them. To be honest it seems this argument blows the “satanists might steal the host” thing out of the water…
I've come to believe over time, for the very reason you pointed out in that ghastly clip, that we should all go back to communion on the tongue.
And preferably by kneeling.
There's just other things I think should be returned before this one is done away with. We had a sacramental priest visit and point out that the breaking of the bread is happening quietly while we are saying peace but that should be a high point of the mass where everyone is paying attention because it's the breaking of Jesus's body to bring us life.
But no one talks about that nearly as much as taking it in the hand.
I’m converting and in OCIA. This week in daily mass, this point of the mass you reference has struck me and even pains my heart when I watch it happen.
You need to read some of what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has to say about this. It was a different way of receiving in the hand than how people receive now. But the reason it was ended is that the clergy knew that some of the crumbs were still falling on the floor and as it is known every drop of crumbs contains the Lord. It was changed to prevent the abomination of Christ in the Eucharist scandalized. Maybe you should look up how he said they received in the hand prior to the switch to communion on the tongue
I was scandalized by the Bishop's bizarre way to receive Communion. It looked like some kind of animal eating something. I very like the original Tradition of receiving Communion in the hand. It is holy, it is allowed by the Church and it is beautiful and is the original Tradition of the Church. It also follows Jesus' words to "Take and Eat.". My conscious is clear on this point. But Bishop Anathasius has unnecessarily scandalized a whole lot of good and holy people to push his personal unacceptable beliefs.
@@tomredd9025 You just make it up as you go, don't you?
Hardly possible that giving on tongue can produce less crumbs than giving into hands. DO NOT LIE AND DO NOT BELIEVE IN LIES.
@@luciamacakova7516 It's not only possible, it's testable and proven that it does. Ignorance is a choice.
Brian, love your content! I used to only receive in the hand, for I thought receiving on the tongue was awkward and unnecessary. And also thought, hey if the Church permits it must be fine. But I can attest to reception on the tongue for me has increased my reverence for the Eucharist. I do a more thorough examination of conscience beforehand and naturally view the host as Christ, not merely a host in a symbolic sense to be thought of as Him. Not saying you can't receive in the hand and have great reverence, but from all I hear from other Catholics and my own experience on the tongue sure does seem to be beneficial for our faith.
This is true for me as well
Tongue+ both knees bent= amen
Yeah, that’s isn’t he teaching of the Catholic Church. And in every other rite of the Church they receive standing .
@michaelspeyrer1264 Christ is there King and God. We prostate during Adoration and other times, makes sense to kneel before Him when receiving
I don't understand, when did the people vying for the Latin mass become the magisterium?
@@OliveMule where did my comment go
Christ is King kneel
I prefer the Latin mass myself, but all this in fighting among Catholics just gets tiring after a while. The communion rail/communion in the hand battle is kind of like here in America with the Native Americans saying how they were here before the evil white man, so they’re the “true” Americans. But anybody that’s taking an anthropology class will tell you if you go back far enough in history “native Americans” aren’t even native to America. Communion in the hand seems to of been the norm for the first several hundred years and although I prefer the communion rail myself, I realize it was the 13th or 14th century invention. They’re never gonna dig up a scroll that’s going to describe the apostle Paul, or one of his disciples. carving communion rails out of limestone for the people of Ephesus, or any other church.
Lutherans do it either way but everyone kneels in a row and you wouldn't be allowed to walk away.
I may be wrong, but I cannot imagine the disciples not breaking, passing, and consuming the Eucharist with their hands. As an artist my hands are especially important to me, and I personally consider it a beautiful blessing and moment when I hold the Eucharist briefly in my hands before consuming. Either way, it is a thanksgiving and I am deeply grateful to be able to receive my Lord in this holy sacrament.
It’s a shame that more people don’t know about The Lady of Akita apparitions. There Our Lady made it clear that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, was very much offended by people receiving him in the hand rather than on the tongue when they receive communion. People need to learn about what Sister Agnes Sasagawa was told and experienced at her convent. It’s one of the most important Marian apparitions in modern times.
But the fake saint Faustina told us he wanted communion in the hand..
I do not get bent out of shape over the way communion is celebrated. I do raise questions when I hear people viture signal how perfectly they get it correct. Reminds me of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying
As I've mentioned before I'm a Protestant minister. I have seen similar pocketing of the bread. First was in a Greek Orthodox Church I was visiting in Florida. They presented a whole loaf, much like they believed Christ did in the last supper. They broke it in half, and then as people would come up, they would break off a bit. I saw one older woman tear off a whole huge chunk. She then took a bit of it and wrapped the chunk in a handkerchief and slip it in her purse. Several years before I had seen a woman do exactly the same thing at a church I was serving in Scotland. As her pastor, I went to see her the next day. She lived in a tiny cottage very near the church building. The minute I got it, I knew right away, she did it for food. So I said nothing to her, but I told some other people in the church, and they started taking food to her, and taking her to the shops to let her buy what she wanted. I believe the Orthodox lady was doing the same thing. But the lady you showed took a wafer. Weird. I found the video interesting. Thanks Brian.
When I was in training a priest warned me to watch out for anyone walking away with the sacrament. He knew, from experience, that there are people who come and take the host for nefarious practices.
That's not Communion. Communion in the Orthodox Church isintincted and distributed with a spoon. What you saw was evlogia, the bread blessed and distributed at the end of some services. Not Communion.
The thing you saw in the Orthodox Church sounds like the unconsecrated bread they give out at the end, which people are free to wrap up and take home. At the Orthodox Liturgy, The Eucharistic Bread is mixed into the chalice with the Precious Blood and consumed as a mush from a spoon. I don’t see how they could possibly put that in their pocket and walk home. Furthermore, the priest always administers it directly into the communicant’s mouth.
Protestants don’t have the Eucharist.
The thing you saw in the Orthodox Church was probably not the Eucharist, but rather antidoron. Literally “instead of the gifts” which is blessed, but not consecrated. Generally, to my understanding, Orthodox practice is to receive the gifts of the body and blood together from a spoon which thankfully leaves little opportunity for thieves to walk off and do Lord knows what with the gifts.
I agree with everything said in the video. That being said; the novus ordo mass that I attend is very recerent. The one Latin Mass that I've attended because its nearby, just did not feel reverent to me. It felt as though it was rushed and that it was meant for the priest daying it only. The mass is a sacrifice offered up for the faithful; the one low mass I went to felt like intruding on a personal mass meant for the priest alone. Reverence is the main issue over everything else. Language doesn't matter if the priest is skipping parts of the mass because he thinks nobody can understand the Latin
The mass is not for us, it’s for God!
I don't think you know what reverence means.
I attend an Ordinariate parish where communion is given only on the tongue, no exceptions, because it is given by intinction (dipped in the Precious Blood first). I have never heard our pastor or any presiding priest have to make an announcement that someone walked away with the Eucharist without consuming It, and to keep an eye out for such things, but I've heard such announcements at other Novus Ordo parishes where Holy Communion is received by most parishioners in the hand.
The interesting thing here is that intinction is not allowed .
What happens if somebody has Celiac and can't receive the host? I noticed that my tlm so it hasn't happened in a while and I don't know if the person switched to a different mass time or what but this person usually went last and he wore white gloves and he was given special permission to receive from the cup of precious blood I'm assuming because he's allergic to wheat and cannot receive the host.
@femaleKCRoyalsFan I have seen people provide low gluten hosts to be consecrated that are for them to consume I would think with some advance notice that arrangements could be made to provide the Precious Blood only if that were needed.
Communion by hand is the ordinary way for 800 years. It will always be discussed. The hand and tongue are both parts of the body temple. The body temple is dogma. Catholics need to be careful how they approach this issue to not reject this dogma St Paul gave us.
Communion in the hand was not the ordinary way for 800 years.
@
Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Cyril of Alexander and John Climacus disagree.
Cyril describes it as, “Coming up to receive, do not approach with your wrists extended or fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right (for it is about to receive a King) and cupping your palm, so receive the Body of Christ; and answer: “Amen.”
Also Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Council of Constantinople in Trullo shows the Eastern rites were receiving by hand as by hand was deemed more reverent than vessels of gold or silver. This was because “The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ.”
The proof the SSPC use doesn’t mention communion by tongue. They use evidence of priests giving communion, which is Catholic teachings, and then twists that to make it mean something about the person receiving the Eucharist when it isn’t the context.
@@paulmualdeave5063 You really ought to read the rest of the quote from Cyril. It explains how you are supposed to anoint your eyes and ears with the Precious Blood when receiving it.
Not all ancient practices ought to be retained.
@@littlerock5256 You are ignorant of Church history. Communion in the hand was the norm for the Church for the first 800 years in both the east and the west. Such information is readily available to those who wish to know the truth.
@littlerock5256 Communion in the hand was practiced for the first 800 years of Christendom. It's a historical fact, and if you had any sense of curiosity, you could easily research this on the web
No one can desecrate the perfect Christ. Those who abuse the Eucharist in the hand, will receive the judgment they ask for. If this is the only or best reason to forbid communion in the hand, then the position is extraordinarily weak. Receiving on the tongue is an innovation, an old innovation, but still an innovation. Jesus didn’t place the unleavened bread (Body) on the tongue of those at the Last Supper, nor did He withhold the cup (Blood). Both of these small-t traditions should not be elevated over receiving in the hand or partaking of the cup.
Stop placing yourself on the judgment seat of the Pharisees over what Christ’s church permits.
@ I’m not judging what is permitted; I’m judging what is wrongly being condemned and forbidden by some.
Those at the Last Supper were priests
@@michellemcdermott2026 I mean they weren’t yet, it’s only later that Jesus gives them priestly faculties…
@ so you’re saying only priests can eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life? No, Jesus was expecting them to offer to others what Christ offered to them.
If a priest would deliver a talk like this in Germany or Austria, he'd be shunned immediately.
Even if he would cite Church Dokuments
Outstanding! If we want to go back to the beginning then we ignore thevtrachings of the faith, no Eucharistic Adoration, no Rosary and nophysical Church. What has Communion in the hand brought us but care free attitudes and abuses?! Thank you for a fantastic video!
Communion in the hand isn't a teaching. It's a practice. It's ironic that trads are confused about tradition vs. Tradition.
@GeraldHunt-i5q the Church is three pillars of the faith: Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Teaching Magisterium. Tradition is the absolute foundation of the Church. We should hang on to our organic tradition by our teeth! It's what Luther hated most about the Church. Traditions have been organic over time as we have understood more over time, like the Marian Dogmas. Give me tradition over change 100%.
That is a false statement. Communion in the hand has brought me closer to God, by following Jesus' command to "take and eat." Nothing in the bible about "Receiving.". It is so beautiful and holy.
@tomredd9025 what is false?
@@tomredd9025 Communion on the hand is sacrilege.
I am the only one who receives on the tongue in any Church I go. One Priest refused to give it on the tongue because he didn’t want to get Covid again. I stand out like a sore thumb, but I believe Priests hands have been consecrated for this purpose.
Read Hebrews.
Thank you for this; good timing given Cardinal Cupich’s recent statement.
“Cardinal”
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”"
Why is is wrong to take it and eat it?
nothing is intrinsically wrong about taking the host and eating it
it's wrong because current Church disciplines forbid it and it is wrong to violate Church discipline
@@mousakandah5188The Church doesn't forbid receiving on the hand. We have been doing it every week since I was a child.
Did you not watch the video? Communion in the hand cheapens the experience of receiving Our Lord and leads to abuses. If you see him as the King of the Universe, he should be treated as with highest regard of royalty .
Are you a priest like the Apostles? He had already consecrated them as priests at that point.
@jgl8194 Why is a wagging tongue better than solemnly folded hands?
As a Byzantine Catholic, I can say that neither we nor the Orthodox take the Eucharist in the hand. The priest uses a golden spoon. Either way, your hands should never be anywhere near it.
Very well explained. I look forward to being worthy to Receive the Eucharist again, but then it will be on my tongue.
You will never be "worthy" to receive Jesus. "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." You are only able to be properly disposed to receive Him.
@@thatguyzwife You're right, but I think he just meant "in a state of grace".
@@edukaeshn I agree. Also, that's what being properly disposed to receive is.
Well here's a thought: the Latin Extraordinary Mass was granted to occur on an indult. To state or allude that an indult is being granted 'for the sake to make an abuse normative' is truly a false teaching. The Magesterium has granted this as a valid way of reception of holy communion as canon law allows the local ordinary and/or the council of bishops to decide such matters. This is a failure to understand the nature of an indult or the Church's governance with the bishop having full authority (within the teachings and councils of the Chruch) over the sacraments.
✝️I'm retired at 47, This video here reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to having over 75,000 biweekly profit, a honest partner and a good daughter full of love 🤍
I'm feeling really motivated.
Could you share some details about the biweekly topic you brought about up? 😊
I raised 75k and Maria Luisa Clare is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Maria L. Clare is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good husband, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
Wow 😱 I know her too
Miss Maria Luisa Clare is a remarkable individual whom has brought immense positivity and inspiration into my life.
I started with a miserly $1500. The results have been mind blowing I must say TBH!
I know that woman(Maria Luisa Clare) If you were born and raised in new York you'd know too, No doubt she is the one that helped you get where you are!!
The idea of doing Communion in the hand or Mass in Aramaic because of it being done in the earliest parts of the Church is antiquarianism which Pope Pius XII warned against.
As is modern Traditionslism. It's funny that pius xii wrote about how changes to the mass could be made contrary to what trads claim pius v said.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q trads in this video are being defined as people who simply follow the magisterium, I think you mean to say the radical traditionalists. That's why the focus of the video is not to discuss something that changed, but to discuss why is it that people are massively going against official doctrine, as if it had been changed, when it fact it has not. If it had been officially changed, then it would be ok. The problem is disobeying and changing by ourselves something that has not been changed by the magisterium, and teaching others to also disobey.
Really wish I didn't see that clip of that woman..
You say it shouldn’t be a competition who finds the most obscure ancient text, to which I agree but just one sentence earlier you made it into a competition on who is a true faithful disciple of the Lord.
I am in favor of a lot of traditional practices which have begun to slip away but communion on the tongue isn’t something I personally want to do. Why? Because it grosses me out. On the one hand that is a totally profane reason but I also want to cherish and long for the Eucharist, not lowkey dread it’s reception. Some people say that crumbs are getting wasted, when you receive it on the hand but the hosts we are getting do not get broken, they already come in the small round form and a main reason for why we no longer use every day bread for the holy communion was precisely to drastically reduce crumbling. So that really is a manufactured issue imo.
I have great respect for people who choose to receive communion on the tongue, I think this is an amazing sign of reverence but that doesn’t mean that receiving it on the hand isn’t. And as for the argument that it is supposed to be an exception: The same is true for the TLM, so if one is cherry-picking for themself, they shouldn’t criticize others for picking different cherries.
I agree with your criticism of the priest who argued against receiving it on the tongue with this old text, that is a pretty wild take from him but with the video title and some parts of the video, you also attacked communion on the hand, even tho your pinned comment says that this wasn’t the intention, and that part I am obviously disagreeing with.
Peace to all and glory to God.
You receive the Eucharist. You don’t take it. It’s only recently I really understood this. Never on the hand. Only consecrated hands to touch God. No Eucharistic ministers. Period.
Yeah people think it's an appeal to tradition vs an appeal to novelty argument. No, my house and i have held that really should only be the priest handling the Eucharist because those men have consecrated hands we as the lay do not... yes I USED to be an EM when i attended novos ordro, no longer. The only exception would be bringing Christ to my wife if she is sick in absence of a priest who can do it and only because i am priest of domestic church and have spirifual authority and you bet your butt im nervous as a bunch of israelites transporting the arc of the covenant over a river and seeing it slip a little......
Imo, novos ordo vs tradition especially in regards to this is very "tit for tat" theyre only aaying that with the strawman argument of appeal to tradition just as a way to "own the chuds", i despise how politics permeates everything now.
But we pray for everyone for a conversion of heart
Consecrated hands have nothing to do with it. Proof of that is deacons whose hands are not consecrated ..
@@GeraldHunt-i5qDeacons are most certainly concecrated in the sacrament of Holy Orders.
One thing I would point out for those who receive in the hand. How many check for visible particles after receiving? I’ve never seen a single person check for visible particles after receiving. And the teaching is that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in every visible particle of the Holy Eucharist. So if you’re not checking for visible particles after receiving in the hand. You’re most likely dropping them on the floor to be trampled by others. If you Truly loved Jesus. Would you not take the upmost care to make sure not a single particle falls to the floor?
I used to check, when I received that way. I also once saw a nun (at a parish that used crumbly baked bread instead of hosts) go and start picking a rather large quantity of crumbs out of the carpet, where people were walking. That stuck with me.
@@duathellto1460you’d probably be the only one. I’ve been to many churches over the world. And I’ve never seen anyone else do it. I never thought about it myself until seeing videos by Gabriel Castillo about the Holy Eucharist. And yea seeing someone picking up crumbs will make you think of it early on. And I wonder why they used leavened bread. The only rite that I personally know that uses leavened bread is the Byzantine rite. They also use intinction, and you must receive on the tongue.
@@jeanvaljean16 It wasn't leavened bread, it was just baked into flat circles that were broken, rather than pressed into hosts. But it did resemble Byzantine bread in texture and probably should have been received from a spoon.
I know I'm not the only one, because I've seen others checking under the same circumstances. But I don't generally watch other people receiving Holy Communion.
The whole “Jesus and the Apostles didn’t speak Latin,” is becoming very much akin to the “Jesus isn’t white;” and frankly I treat it with the same amount of disdain.
As you should.
I imagine that you disdain many people. You are tight that rhetorical tricks are intellectualy dishonest, but the best is to concentrate on true debate over substantial material. In my standard Roman Missal here in Mexico, the ordinary of the mass and all the prayers are in Latin in an appendix. Since, in my day, Brooklyn high schools, including public ones, required Latin, I sometimes say Mass in Latin while on retreat. No one in my congregation has ever asked me to say Mass in Latin. Of course, I would never use the Tridentine rite, which has been supressed. I'm not a schismatic.
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy." [SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, POPE BENEDICT XVI]
@@robertcoogan6421
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy." [SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, POPE BENEDICT XVI]
@@robertcoogan6421
"It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy." [Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI]@@robertcoogan6421
"Approaching, therefore, do not come with your palms stretched out or with your fingers open; but make your left hand a throne for your right, since the latter is about to receive the King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, 'Amen.' Then, carefully sanctify your eyes by the touch of the holy body, and partake of it."
Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD) giving instructions on how to receive communion (Catechetical Lectures 23:21).
This appears to be the norm in the early church until Pope Leo the Great:
"One receives the body of the Lord in his mouth, and the priest places it there." Pope Leo the Great (440 AD; Sermon 91:3)
I highly recommend to everyone read Your Life, Your Game by Keezano. I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read. Amen💟✝️
l just bought it, thanks
Spiritual growth and financial success?? This has nothing to do with the original post, nor with orthodox Christianity.
Okay, so upon your recommendation I read MEMORIALE DOMINI. I see the study you reference is in the document itself. It looks like two thirds of the bishops who participated were against communion in the hand. Basically that's what you said. Well, you know that was a poll, right? And that polls aren't mandatory and can be significantly off from real voting tallies? (Recent U.S. elections show as much.) This same document goes on to say that conferences of bishops can request communion in the hand with a two-thirds majority vote--and then might receive permission from the Vatican which would review the request. So, without more information, and this document seems to say that the votes were secret, the final counts went TWO-THIRDS the opposite way. It totally blows your argument. Two thirds (or more, it's unknown) of bishops requested that communion in the hand become an option for the faithful. Maybe their own desires and fears were revealed by the polling. But when it came time to act for the spiritual welfare of their people, they voted to try it. And it seems the conferences which requested permission, and received permission, and tried it now for ... what...decades, never went back. Be honest: this should be part of the discussion if MEMORIALE DOMINI is brought up at all.
You clearly did not comprehend what was written.
There is no debate, receiving in the hand is valid because Holy Church has declared it to be valid and anyone disputing that is out of order. The tradition of "receiving on the tongue" almost certainly did not happen at the Last Supper but is an extra public display of piety that crept in later. And while it valid to receive that way, it is not compulsory and it is almost certainly not the way that the Apostles received.
The Council of Saragossa, 380, excommunicated anyone who dared to continue to receive Holy Communion in the hand.
Furthermore, orthodox Catholic clerics whom I regard as reliable sources of Catholic knowledge have told me that the American indult to receive Holy Communion in the hand while standing was granted illicitly. ☝🏻
I prefer communion on the tongue and want to do everything to prevent profanation of our Lord, however there are drawings and descriptions of communion in the hand going back to the first century. They called it making a 'throne' with your hands.
True but the practice was stopped due to abuse of The Eucharist
They also triple-dunked days-old infants in muddy rivers for their baptism. Just because something was done one way first, doesn’t mean it was the best possible way to do it.
@michellemcdermott2026 do you know when it was stopped and for how long
@leekflower1 Go look up a book called " Communion on the Hand" it by a Spanish priest. I will find his name
Fr Juan Rodolfo Laise has a book called "Communion on the Hand"
The whole history of it is in that book
I’m Byzantine Catholic and we only receive one way and it’s not in our hands but I thought in the Roman rite the communicant is supposed to put the host in their mouth in front of the priest so he sees you do it so why are they allowing people to walk away with the host?
They are supposed to. But a lot of people put the host in their mouth as they walk away.
I think most priests are not well trained in how to kindly and firmly correct people who are doing things the wrong way, so in order to avoid hurt or irate parishioners, they simply do not correct such things. There often seems to be more of an emphasis on getting out of the way for the next person than on receiving Our Lord carefully and well.
Jésus dit:"PRENEZ et mangez, ceci est mon Corps" Son corps est rompu et livré aux mains des pécheurs. Il vient à nous dans note misère. Mains ou langue, ce sont des détails puisque Dieu regarde le coeur.
Watching the video more closely, she put it on her tongue before spitting it back out. The same thing could have happened had she received on the tongue outright. This isn’t a matter of receiving on the tongue or the hand, this is a matter of the ministers paying attention.
No, she inserted half of the Eucharist into her mouth, something that would not have happened if the priest had given it to her, in the tongue.
I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t place the Eucharist on their tongues.
They had also just been ordained so not a good argument.
Hey, watch out! It's not about how Jesus did it. It's about 20 centuries of accreted "tradition", remember.
@@themcool8824 what’s the oldest source saying it was directly on the tongue, and not in the hand?
@@slackerjazz Jesus was ordained.
I'd go one further. If you believe in the idea that "holy communion" was intended for more people than the apostles at the last supper private meal, then I think you need to follow what the Gospels said. The Lord said "TAKE THIS all of you..." He would not have put it on their tongues. I think the recipient should take it out of the vessel themselves and eat it there and then before walking away. Anyone profaning the host would have it on their conscience. The priest should warn the congregation of this before communion.
However, I think the sacrifice was made the next day in the cross and this was a private meal the day before for the apostles only. Communion is a memorial of that, as one way to remember Him.
Why is communion in the hand so common in the US and Canada?
It's common nearly everywhere
? It’s allowed in most of the world.
What do you mean “why is it allowed.” Because eh Church has given permission for its use.
@@michaelspeyrer1264you misspelled abuse
Keep in mind that for some, they way they take the Eucharist is dependent on their physical capabilities. And a priest who insists they take it on the tongue without understanding these differences is not providing the host reverently.
Not everybody is equal.
RE: meaning of *indult* for receiving on the hand.
Both insults and dispensations are exceptions to cannot law, but there’s a massive distinction between the two. A dispensation is permission to not do something that is normally required, meaning the thing itself is good. An indult is permission to do something that is normally forbidden, meaning the thing itself is *bad*.
Thus the indult for reception in the hand literally tells you it’s bad to receive in the hand, simply by virtue of being an indult!
This is very misleading...I'd encourage you to remove or correct your post. An indult is permission to do something that is not normative. The church can never give permission to do something bad.
Communion on the hand is not an abuse. It has been used here since at least 1970, and has since become the norm. I don't know why traditionalists keep bringing this up.
Since 1970 ???
Wow!
Back in the stone age!!!
@@alhilford2345 A quick search of the history of the Catholic Church shows that communion on the hand was the norm for the first 800 years of the Church in both the east and the west.
*I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him,* $230k every 4weeks! | now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God's work and the church.
Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
Wow that's huge, how do you make that much monthly?.. I have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
It's Ms. Evelyn Vera doing, she's changed my life.
I started pretty low, though, $5000 thereabouts. The return came massive. Joey is in school doing well, telling me of new friends he's meeting in school. Thank you Evelyn Vera, you're a miracle.
Wow...I know her too she is a licensed broker and a FINRA agent she is popular in
US and Canada she is really amazing woman with good skills and experience.
I left the Catholic Church 25 years ago and converted to the Orthodox Church. We are seeing a flood of converts. This is one of the many reasons.
There is no debate on this subject. Our bishops decide the practice of how to properly receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyone who presumes to know any one way is the only acceptable way to receive Him can take it up with their bishop.
So many Bishops are mere modernist yes men. Pray for the Church.
Obeying the local bishop isn’t very popular these days
Bishops today aren't living authentically Catholic lives
@@tommyofaquino Then become a Protestant. I mean that sincerely since the Bishops are either the leaders God gave us, or they aren't.
This may come as a shock to you, but bishops can be wrong.
Brother, I agree with you 100%!!
I’m a revert, and now see so many abuses liturgically and practically of clergy and laymen that concern me as I grow in my faith and journey with Jesus.
Let us pray for them, for each other, and for Holy Mother Church!
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
🙏🏼🎚🔥💪🏼
I genuinely didn't know there was a debate.
Hundreds of english martyrs went to the grave to resist the very same reforms present in the novus ordo. Think on that when you defend the modern practices
Yet more Eucharistic miracles are present in these novus ordo masses.
🤔
Also in ancient times albeit it was a bit different receiving on the hand wasn’t entirely new either.
@vaderkurt7848 "Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe". The fact Eucharistic miracles are apparently occurring more frequently, to me, shows God is trying to correct two sides of the same problem of lack of faith: 1) Some "traditionalists" do not believe the Novus Ordo is legitimate, and God is showing that He is indeed still present, and 2) There is a catastrophic lack of belief among the "Novus Ordo" side of things in the Real Presence in general, which explains all the abuses like Communion in the hand, which God is trying to correct. The increased presence of these miracles which demonstrate the most basic truths of our faith, I'd argue, is NOT a sign we're on the right track.
Respectfully, and maybe I'm reading too much into your comment, but it sounds like you're being the exact "esoteric" person Brian was talking about in this video, by saying "In ancient times people received on the hand, so the modern practice isn't new". It sounds like you know that even this ancient practice still wasn't like the modern practice; the recipients had a napkin on their hands, and they bent their head down to consume the Host without directly touching it. Obviously this is magnitudes more reverent than the modern practice of plucking it up with your hand, potentially not even consuming before heading back to the pews. And even then, as Brian said, we don't even need to have this debate, it's been settled by Christ's Church -- Communion on the tongue is the normal practice, and just because things used to be done a certain way does not mean that way is better just by being older. As the knowledge of the Lord and piety within His Church increases, new things will build upon the old, and that's really what Tradition is. To say "well, actually, in some instances in the past..." in regards to older practices is just nitpicking and missing the larger point.
Why do you think that might be? Such miracles take place in order to convert people to belief in the Real Presence. It’s precisely in Novus Ordo Masses that this is necessary, where belief in the Real Presence is undermined by the deficient form of the Mass
@ Did I say it was better?
No but it isn’t illicit either
Communion in the Hand allowed by the Holy See in obedience isn’t what they were killed for.
You are falsely conflating two unlike things.
I dont think that receiving on the tongue is the oldest form, but I usually receive Holly Communion this way. Except when I'm sick (have flu), then I prefer to receive on the hand. I'm from Lithuania, Vilnius. In our parish both forms are allowed (some people receive on the tongue kneeling)and this question isn't an issue at all. The most significant thing is that the majority of Holly Mass atendants receive Holly Communion. People really care about Holly Communion in our parish.
I never thought about people actually stealing the host before, I've heard the other arguments and always thought they smacked of scrupulosity , but this reason presented above actually makes sense to me, yeah harder to steal it after it's been placed on your tongue 🤔
"And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost." [John 6:12]
@edukaeshn but that wasn't the host , that's an earlier moment, but let me be clear, I agree with Brian's argument above
@@adventureinallthings It is no mistake that this verse occurs in the same chapter as John 6:54: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
I'd suggest reading John 6 again.
Wow. This video is by far one of your best. Thank you for your boldness is speaking goodness and truth
Communion in the hand is an abuse that needs to end.
it's imprudent, but that doesn't make it an abuse since Church discipline allows it.
Communion was originally in the hand. Communion on the tongue was a medieval innovation.
You're not a Catholic, then. We've been doing Communion on the hand for 2000 years
If it's an abuse as you claim then it's the bishops' problem who permit it. I remember I wrote a letter some years ago to the CDF at the Vatican and got a reply saying reception in the hand or the tongue are both valid, echoing Redemptionist Sacramentum (2004). Either the ordinary Magisterium can be trusted here or it cannot, which is it? The key distinction is not tongue or hand but reverence or irreverence
@@DukeOfEarl88 You realize you're a Protestant, right? You make grand proclamations as if you speak for God and his Church, despite no trust in the Holy Spirit.
Jesus seeks friendship then full Communion with us as fully embodying what he demonstrated is possible. The Last Supper was full of laughter and slouching on each other.
These people obsessed with formality are clinging to something far more superficial.
Thanks!
No matter how to receive it, prepare our hearts, be reverend. Our tongue is not always cleaner than our hands.
Amen 100%
Your comment should be pinned at the top.
That's not the point
The way we worship shows us what we believe. On the hand does not teach us Catholic faith
Unless you lick your hands afterwards, your brushing particles of Our Lord and Savior all over your clothing.
This irreverence is why 70% of church-going Catholics stopped believing in the Real Presence.
Completely misses the point
Confessional Lutheran here. We practice either method of receiving, but I actually prefer to receive the bread in the hand, and find that to be more meaningful. Just as Christ submitted himself helplessly into the hands of Mary, Joseph, Simeon, Anna and others, and later into the hands of the Romans to be killed, He once more offers himself freely into our hands at the altar. Also, unlike Pilate who thought he could wash his own hands of the murdering of God, I know that the only way to wash His blood off of my hands is, well, with His blood. No, I don't pour the wine over my own hands, that would be an abuse. But it is not an abuse to receive in the hands: "Take, and eat." I just cherish the moment I get to cradle His body in my hands, and ponder how all the saints felt who were blessed to interact with Him physically during his walk on earth.
I do not understand the argument that we are unworthy to receive in the hands, and therefore must receive on the tongue. Is my tongue more worthy than my hand? Has my tongue sinned less than my hand? Does Christ come to us because we are worthy? Did he touch lepers because they were worthy? Obviously I am not worthy on my own merits, that is true. I do not claim to be. But He has declared us clean, redeemed, purified by his blood--the very blood we are receiving at the altar. Yes, some may seek to abuse the sacrament, but "abusus non tollit usum." I am not doing something wrong by taking and eating, as the Lord commanded. To constrain anyone from doing that is an abuse in and of itself. As to those who would abuse it, "forgive them, for they know not what they do."
I've grown so tired of this debate. Not even because this video is wrong, it's that it's entirely in the right, and the most people can come up with to defend the pro-hand position is "Well both are allowed!!" Or the esoteric arguments you present in this video of "Well ackshually, in some old practices..." Or the arugment "Isn't this PHARASAICAL?" Or the worst of all, "Why do you CARE so much?? Let people receive as they want!" Just totally missing the point and acting like aloofness is not only something to be celebrated, but that actually it's better to ignore the real points being made for the sake of appearing intellegent and nuanced. On-the-hand was an exception, one which was allowed to encourage time to adjust to receiving on the tongue, a grace period which has been totally ignored and abused. If you're gonna argue it's actually okay, real arguments need to be brought forth.
I read your post three times attempting to understand what you're tying to say. I'm still not sure what your point was.
There is no argument for receiving on the hand. It is sacrilege.
Question: How did the first century christains distribute the bread and wine?
Answer: doesn’t matter.
There is no debate. The Church has the power to authorize reception of the Eucharist on the tongue and in the hand. This they have done. There is plenty of historical evidence that the early Church received on the hand. As far as I have read, Jesus did not offer the bread ( his body) on the tongues of his apostles during the last supper. Some of you may say it is only because they were to be priests, but we are all a part of a royal priesthood. I guarantee that many of those who so stridently hold to reception on the tongue probably shouldn't be receiving the Eucharist in the first place.
its all about power with libs... never about love of God
What a moronic response. You really need self reflection calling someone liberal because of a difference of opinion and an actual fact. You’re the one that is being liberal.
My concern about receiving communion in the hand is the fact that particles of the body and blood of Christ are unknowingly being haphazardly discarded. The altar server used to have the paten under the recipient’s chin to catch any particles. The priest would then devoutly transfer them to the chalice and reverently consume them at the end of communion time. Too many people today question the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. More reference should be given to our Lord.
I'm in a situation where I realize that communion by the mouth is the most proper way to receive the Eucharist, but not a single person in my church does so in this way, and I'm afraid that deep down, I'm only trying to look more "traditional" or "spiritual" in front of my peers. part of me wished communion was done in a more private setting somehow because of how self conscious I can get instead of simply focusing on God, but I realize when your part of a large congregation thats simply not practical. any advice for trying to break the mold?
You don’t have any authority of judgment over this matter.
Consider speaking to your priest directly. If it’s acceptable to him that you receive on the tongue, do not worry what other people think.
If your fear isn't that you WILL be prideful in your piety compared to others, but only that you'll APPEAR to be prideful in your piety compared to others, then there's no danger. Who cares what others think? If anything, maybe someone will see your piety and it will encourage them to reflect on if they're being pious themselves. Receive on the tongue, it's entirely your right, though as another comment said, perhaps you can talk to the priest before Mass, just so he's not caught off-guard. But again, you're entirely within your right to receive in this way, so even if the priest, God forbid, says something against it, I would still encourage insisting on receiving on the tongue (unless of course that kind of insistence would result in you feeling prideful). I'll pray for you, good luck!
My advice is do what's right for Jesus
God knows your heart. His knowledge of you is the only one that matters. May God bless you and yours.
Outside of the attempt at appealing to the oldest thing, or a letter from St Jerome I have yet to hear a good argument in the affirmative for reviving Holy Communion on the hand. What is the benefit to receiving that way over receiving on the tongue?
None.