www.byzcath.org
Posted By: jvf HOLY EUCHARIST - 07/24/20 06:40 PM
Does anyone know if serving the Holy Eucharist under both species, now in a paper cup and having to
shake the cup in order to get it out of the cup and into your mouth to swallow is Licit under the Eastern Rite
Canons of Laws?
Is this the way the Holy Eucharist should be given?
I just received it that way last Sunday after 4 months of government lockdown.

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/01/20 04:12 PM
The CCEO itself doesn’t address how the Holy Gifts are administered since not all Churches covered under it distribute them the same way. Particular Law and the Liturgical books would contain these laws as they pertain to normal circumstances. We are currently involved in extraordinary circumstances and each bishop is the decision maker as to the best approach. My own parish purchased stainless steel spoons, enough for each communicant, that are rinsed in the sacrarium and then washed. I judge this to be the optimal solution.
Posted By: jvf Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/02/20 05:10 PM
Fr Deacon Lance:

I believe that the Holy Eucharist should be administered to the Faithful via a metal spoon by ordained Clergy
like yourself and not picked up in a paper cup and swallowed like an Hors D' Oeuvre at a cocktail party.
This way is so disrespectful to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ!
Thanks

SLAVA ISUSU CHRISTU!
Posted By: Colin Sheehan Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/19/20 05:55 PM
Father Deacon Lance Amen! This is the same reason we in the Latin Church condemn Rome's position of permitting Communion in the hand. It's currently seen as a non issue or minor issue by most Bishops (at least here in the United States) yet most don't realize that our Lord's Body is being profaned every time He is placed in the hands of laity. There was a study done by students at a Newman Center at a university who brought microscopes to Mass to study afterwards to try and find Eucharistic particles. They found that particles of the Eucharist would stick to people's hands and be found on the floor, in the parking lot, on doorknobs, in the bathroom, etc. While the people who choose to receive this way are certainly not "guilty" of profaning the Lord's Body, it doesn't change the objective fact that they "are". This is one instance where I emphatically state that Rome is flat out wrong. It's a matter of discipline and not a dogma, but it is painful how most Catholics in the Latin Rite (TLM communities notwithstanding) don't know about this grave matter or simply don't care. I don't think a good portion of the clergy realize that there is a correlation between the plummeting numbers of Catholics believing in the Real Presence and the type of Liturgy they present. The fruits of the Second Vatican Council in the Roman Church have been parishes/schools/seminaries closing, religious vocations/priestly vocations drying up, the youth leaving the Church in droves, etc. And it's fair to concede the point the USCCB (and most prominently Bishop Barron) makes in pointing out that a large part of this pull comes from society. But it doesn't negate the fact that our Church has failed to keep these souls within by giving them the means of having and maintaining meaningful encounters with our Lord in the Liturgy. Anytime I would try to mention this (and I've even had the privilege of several conversations with Bishop Barron via his youtube channel) I would be dismissed out of hand as a rad trad (the Bishop never used such language. He just didn't seem willing or able to connect the dots I was trying to point out). And this isn't an attack on Bishop Barron, personally. I respect the great work He does with his Catholicism series. He has a few positions that are suspect and he can get himself into theological binds every now and again, but we can't expect perfection and infallibility in our Bishops, so while others are overly critical of the good work he does and tries to do, I respect him for continuing to evangelize as best he knows how.

I just wanted to add that as a means of disclaimer. I can say things from my personal experience and the shared experience of countless others that can come off as attacking the Roman Church, which is never my intention. Mods, please keep this in mind if you read any posts of mine that sound confrontational or disparaging of the Roman Church or hierarchy, this is never my intention. Please let me know if anything I say crosses the line. It is not my desire to calumniate or spread negativity about the Roman Church.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/21/20 12:42 PM
I do not believe receiving in the hand is profane. It was the normal mode of reception from hundreds of years. So yes I think claiming so crosses the line.
Posted By: Colin Sheehan Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/21/20 04:59 PM
The belief that communion in the hand was practiced for hundreds of years is likely a stretch too far though. The Church did permit it in the beginning but quickly evolved to kneeling and on the tongue (for the Roman Church) because it was seen (and genuinely is) the more reverent and holy way to receive. I'm not saying it's better or holier than Eastern practices, I'm only speaking on the Roman Church. Not to mention the practice of communion in the hand today was started as an act of disobedience working against mandates from Rome. It was an abuse that became so widespread Roman leadership simply thought to permit it rather than correct all those participating and perpetuating liturgical abuse. In the Roman Church it is profane because of how tiny particles of the Host stick to peoples hands and end up falling to the floor getting trampled on by the line of communicants waiting to receive. A bunch of students from a Newman center did a study at their chapel at university and discovered that communion in the hand leads to particles of our Lord being found on the floor, in door knobs, in urinals, on bathroom floors, out in parking lots, etc. We believe that Christ is fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in both species and that the tiniest particle of the Host or drop of the Blood is the complete Eucharistic presence of our Lord. I can't see how a practice that directly leads to putting Christ's Eucharistic body in a toilet could be anything but profane. And I say this respectfully, so please don't take this as being confrontational (I don't mean to convey any tone or attitude with this post if it ends up reading that way). Ultimately, I wish the Roman Church would model Communion like the Byzantine Church. So much less room for the Eucharist to be abused.
Posted By: Utroque Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/21/20 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by Colin Sheehan
. I can say things from my personal experience and the shared experience of countless others that can come off as attacking the Roman Church, which is never my intention. Mods, please keep this in mind if you read any posts of mine that sound confrontational or disparaging of the Roman Church or hierarchy, this is never my intention. Please let me know if anything I say crosses the line. It is not my desire to calumniate or spread negativity about the Roman Church.


Intentionally or not, you do attack, calumniate and spread negativity about the Roman Church when you say that she propagates a profanation of the Lord by allowing the faithful to receive in the hand. The reverend deacon is correct when he writes that it was common practice in the ancient churches, both east and west, to distribute the Eucharist thus. How can restoring this practice be a profanation? It is no less a profanation than receiving on the tongue. I think it was St Paul who had something to say about dividing up the body into worthy and unworthy parts. In any case, I'm sure the Lord can deal with the unintentional scattering of Eucharistic bread particles on carpets or otherwise, and does not need you or anyone else as His watchdog! I'm not a "Mod", brother Colin, and, even without seeing you, I trust I am a bit older.
Posted By: Irish_Ruthenian Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/21/20 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by Colin Sheehan
. I can say things from my personal experience and the shared experience of countless others that can come off as attacking the Roman Church, which is never my intention. Mods, please keep this in mind if you read any posts of mine that sound confrontational or disparaging of the Roman Church or hierarchy, this is never my intention. Please let me know if anything I say crosses the line. It is not my desire to calumniate or spread negativity about the Roman Church.


Intentionally or not, you do attack, calumniate and spread negativity about the Roman Church when you say that she propagates a profanation of the Lord by allowing the faithful to receive in the hand. The reverend deacon is correct when he writes that it was common practice in the ancient churches, both east and west, to distribute the Eucharist thus. How can restoring this practice be a profanation? It is no less a profanation than receiving on the tongue. I think it was St Paul who had something to say about dividing up the body into worthy and unworthy parts. In any case, I'm sure the Lord can deal with the unintentional scattering of Eucharistic bread particles on carpets or otherwise, and does not need you or anyone else as His watchdog! I'm not a "Mod", brother Colin, and, even without seeing you, I trust I am a bit older.


I read something else that caused me to pause and go "hmmmm....." The idea that reception in the hand is somehow dirty or not befitting to Christ is a kind of subtle indication that the Roman Catholics who believe this have adopted Luther's position on mankind as somehow being "filthy sinners" a "massa damnata" and that the flesh (or the body) is somehow corrupted and unworthy to touch the Lord. How different from when Christ walked the earth and He reached out to touch the leper, the woman caught in sin, and others who had morally fallen or were dreadfully ill! It strikes me that this is the same kind of Jansenism that sees the body as unclean and therefore decries the ordination of married men because they **GASP** have sexual intercourse with wives.
Posted By: Colin Sheehan Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/21/20 11:42 PM
While all of us are sinners I don't view Catholics who choose to receive Communion in the hand as committing sin for doing so. I do not accuse them of being guilty of anything either. Let's be careful not to promote antiquarianism (which Rome considers a heresy). Just because communion in the hand was common practice in the earliest form of the Liturgy doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it. The Church quickly abandoned that practice for communion on the tongue. Just as Father Deacon Lance was concerned about the impiety of distributing our Lord in Communion via paper cups, communion in the hand is hardly different (in my experience as a Roman Catholic). And then there's this https://onepeterfive.com/communion-hand-true-story/

But I was only making an observation. I wasn't trying to debate anyone :-( Sorry if I offended anyone. That was the opposite of my intention.


I agree God doesn't need us to be His watch dog but at the same time, it should bother us as Catholics to learn that Eucharistic particles are being found regularly on the floor, in urinals, on door knobs, in parking lots, etc. Would that the entire Catholic world could adopt the Ruthenian use of a spoon.
Posted By: Colin Sheehan Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/23/20 04:35 AM
It's not the fact that our Lord is received in the hand that is problematic. It's the fact that particles of our Lord end up falling to the floor and end up in urinals, on doorknobs, in parking lots, etc (not to mention that the increase in Eucharistic hosts being stolen for black masses end up coming from parishes that offer communion in the hand since its easier for someone to simply walk back to their pew (or walk completely out of the Church once they take communion like 10%-20% of the parish, even though the Mass hasn't finished yet.

If greater care was taken to ensure our Lord's Body would not be profaned I think there would not be so much backlash against communion in the hand.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/23/20 09:31 PM
If someone wants to profane the Eucharist, they will simply hold it in their mouth and spit it out when convenient. As to microscopic particles those can fall from the Host as it is picked up and put into the mouth as well. Communion in the hand is valid and allowed by the Latin Church. Consider this my direction as moderator to drop this subject.
Posted By: Colin Sheehan Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/23/20 09:49 PM
I will let it be at this point but would like to make one respectful clarification, if you would please allow me. In the Latin practice, communion on the tongue does not encounter particles falling to the floor (barring unintentional accidents which are unavoidable everywhere). The use of patens under the chin of the communicants makes it possible to give communion in such a way that diminishes any and all possibility of particles of our Lord's body being put at risk. But with that, I will stop posting on it. Thank you.
Posted By: Fr. Deacon Lance Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/23/20 10:15 PM
The use of a paten does not 100% guarantee the micro particles you speak of will not make it to the floor.
Posted By: theophan Re: HOLY EUCHARIST - 08/23/20 11:02 PM
Quote
I do not believe receiving in the hand is profane. It was the normal mode of reception from hundreds of years.


Christ is in our midst!!

To support Father Deacon Lance's post:

There was a set of pictures posted a few years ago showing the Liturgy of St. James being celebrated somewhere in Eastern Europe. The Holy Gifts were being distributed by having the Lord placed into the hand of each communicant and each one being allowed to drink from the Chalice. Memory is not what it once was so I cannot recall if the Liturgy was served by an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic parish. However, the comments that surrounded the pictures indicated that this was the correct practice when this Liturgy is served.
© The Byzantine Forum