About Communion in the hand

Come in, let us bow down to worship him! Let us bow the knee before the Lord who created us! Because he is our God, and we, the people he feeds, the sheep led by his hand. $95; 6-7

That is why we have to be extremely sorry when we see that many do not know how to appreciate the value of this salutary mystery, which makes heaven happy and preserves the whole world. Kempis, Imitation of Christ, The Eucharistic Sacrament

“Fidelity to the Roman Pontiff implies a clear and determined obligation: that of knowing the Pope's thought, doing everything on our part so that all Catholics attend to the teaching of the Holy Father, and accommodate their actions in his teachings life” (Saint Josemaría, Forge, 633)

That's how it should be. It would be logical if we cared about the teaching of the Pontiff. If we were in tune. There are many ways to say things. One of the most polite is by example, just as sweet Christ on Earth does. You don't have to answer: “I'm not obliged, well…” So we're not going anywhere. So everything is worth and nothing is worth. It is what despairs me of the West, anything goes and nothing goes. They relativize everything, well, except for money. In that they do not forgive, nor feel nor suffer. They are the best at that, I don't argue. In that absolute rigidity, millimeters and endless clauses. But religion? Ha! And on top of that he asks! The relativistic man, let's see if you find out once and for all...

They relativize everything and score goals as they please, from the right, from the left, wherever they please. I don't give a damn about Anonymous and its hacking of the Vatican website. If they can't give more of themselves, what do I care about them? I have my hackers from within, to export.

This is one of the hackers:“The “Call to Disobedience” movement, born in Austria and now with important ramifications in Ireland, Germany, France and Slovakia, is spreading. There is no shortage of supporters in Latin America, the US and Australia, they publish everywhere.

The Pope fears the first progressive schism, supported by hundreds of priests and a patrol of bishops. "We do not fear excommunications nor do we want a schism, but rather that the Church listen to us and dialogue", explains the already popular "Austrian Luther", Father Helmut Schueller, 59 years old, leader of the "Initiative of the parish priests", which has the support of 400 priests in Austria.

Polls show that the majority of the 4,000 Austrian priests, a country with deep traditionalist Catholic traditions, which is undergoing a process of dizzying triumph of secularism and distancing from the faithful of a Church that they consider anchored in the past, sympathize with the movement that was born last June with the “Call to disobedience”, signed by 329 priests.”

The “disobedients”, equivalent in cassock version of the “outraged”, claim to end compulsory celibacy, allow communion for the divorced and remarried, impose the female priesthood, give the lay faithful a more important role in the Eucharist, allowing them to preach and administer the sacraments without a Mass when there are no priests, in addition to ordaining the "Viri probati", faithful married with children of proven faith who can become priests without giving up their family. And respect homosexuals, blessing unions.

What's new? Someone saw them 200 years ago:

"I saw the terrestrial Church, that is, the society of the faithful on earth, the army of Christ in its state of passage on earth, completely darkened and desolate" (AA.II.352)

"You priests, you don't move! You are asleep and the fold burns on all sides! You do nothing! How will you cry for that one day! If only you had said a Pater! (...) I see so many traitors! They can't stand it being said: "This is going wrong." Everything is fine in their eyes as long as they can glorify themselves with the world! "I saw many good and pious bishops, but they were mute and weak and the bad party often took the force" (AA.II.414)

"Again I saw the vision in which the church of San Pedro was undermined, following a plan made by the secret sect, at the same time that it was deteriorated by storms" (AA.III.103)

“I saw the church of the apostates grow greatly. I saw the darkness that came from it, spread around it and I saw many people leave the legitimate Church and go towards the other saying: "There everything is more beautiful, more natural and more orderly" (AA.II.414).

"I saw deplorable things: they gambled, they drank, they chattered, they seduced women in the church, in a word, all kinds of abominations were committed there" (AA.III.120)

“The priests let anything be done and said the mass with a lot of irreverence. I saw few who still had mercy and judged things sanely. All of this made me very sad. Then my celestial Spouse took me by the middle of the body, as he himself had been tied to the column and told me: «This is how the Church will still be chained, this is how it will be closely tied before it can reveal itself» (AA.III .120)

I saw the Pope in prayer; he was surrounded by false friends who often did the opposite of what he said. (AA.II.203)

I also saw in Germany worldly ecclesiastics and enlightened Protestants manifest wishes and form a plan for the fusion of religious denominations and for the suppression of papal authority.(AA.III.179)

(From the visions of Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerick)

Back on topic. If we lose our centrality in Christ, we have lost everything. Christ is everything. Outside of that, our talk is meaningless, our theology empty. No heat, neither turn on nor heat. If we do not know how to value the mystery of faith, stop and do not continue. So that?

And don't come to me in case I'm a late-nighter, that has nothing to do with it. Or if I'm an antikiko, neither. All that is to take balls out. I am a Catholic who would like to be as is and there is no more. But even that they put sticks to the wheels.

Look at an example. A parish priest, Don X whose name I do not reveal, decides to put a prie-dieu to receive communion. He stands behind the prie-dieu and whoever wants to can receive communion on his knees and on his lips. Whoever doesn't, can receive it in the hand. Well, not even with those. It turns out that a delegation of parishioners is formed and on the way to bishop, to complain about the parish priest for being anachronistic. Well, complain about the Pope too, while we are at it!

What I am advocating is that communion in the hand gives rise to increasing secularization. I refer to the evidence of the "experiments" carried out in several European countries several decades ago. How are they now?

These bishops rightly said in the Syndo of 2005:

On October 5, 2005, during the Synod of Bishops in the Vatican. BE. Archbishop Jan Pawel Lenga M.I.C., of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, reminded those present of the Sacredness of the Eucharist and discussed ways to highlight this fact. He stated that “among the liturgical renovations produced in the Western world, two in particular, two tend to cloud the visible aspect of the Eucharist in particular, especially with regard to its centrality and sanctity: the removal of the central tabernacle, and the distribution of Communion in the hand.

Communion in the hand, he said, is spreading and even prevailing as if it is easier, as a type of fashion... Therefore, I humbly suggest the following practical propositions: that the Holy See issue a universal regulation establishing the official way of receiving Communion in the mouth and kneeling; with Communion in hand that is reserved exclusively for the clergy. He also asked that the Bishops in places where Communion in the hand has been introduced work with pastoral prudence to return the believer to the official Communion rite, valid for all local Churches.

Likewise the Cardinal, Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia, was the first to highlight the problem, telling the synod on October 3 that he thinks Catholics should receive Communion on the tongue, while kneeling. When communicants stand, the Cardinal said, he feels like a dentist looking into their mouths.

The more this practice is stopped, or abandoned altogether, the better.

Another thing related to the topic that I would like to at least touch on is the following:

WHO IS COMMUNION GIVEN TO?

It seems that the saying comes true: communion for all! Whether you are a faithful or an infidel, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, Orthodox, Buddhist or a member of kinesiology, whoever it is – you can show up at a church and receive communion. That's a very serious problem. It doesn't have to be that way. It is not necessary to say that Christ knew what was going to happen and allowed it. No, it's up to us to manage (that is, the consecrated ministers) to whom communion can be given.

I'll illustrate this with an example:

Local New Jersey Senator Richard Codey disguised himself as a 65-year-old man, 'homeless' and fresh out of a mental institution. Thus, he spent a day and a night wandering the streets of the largest city in the state, Newark, and tried to find a place to spend the night. However, the task is "almost impossible when you are homeless," Codey explained. to local TV, as most shelters require applicants to be enrolled in some government assistance program or to present an ID.”

In other words, to get a crust of bread, you need to show your D.N.I. And for the Blood of Christ? It is not unreasonable to have an I.E.I. (Ecclesiastical Identity Document) or any credential that allows us to attest to an unknown priest that we are Catholic. Or at least present yourself to the priest (in the case of going to a church that we do not usually attend) to be able to receive Communion. Communion is not something at my whim, in this way many offenses against God could be avoided.

I think that by allowing anyone to enter a church, even carrying weapons, blades or firearms (since we do not search anyone), I think that we comply with the opening to the world. And I think it's okay. But to receive communion automatically, NO.

The text that I quote at the end of the post I found in a church (it is also on this page). It seemed pretty good to me, except for one point that I qualified.

On Communion in the hand

1.- Did you know that Paul VI was pressured by members of the clergy -in Germany, Belgium, Holland, France- to authorize Communion in the hand, which was being spread without any permission, in an attitude of indiscipline and individualism?

2.- Did you know that in February 1965 the Consilium was created to implement the Council's liturgical recommendations? This body asked Cardinal Alfrink that Holland keep the traditional way of distributing Communion (9-12-65).

3.- Did you know that in the face of continuous pressure, the Second Congregation of Rites granted the new practice in Germany (7-6-68) and Belgium (7-11-68) but that, due to protests Because of that capitulation, the Pope suspended the concession (7-25-68)?

4.- Did you know that the Pope's decision failed to stop the abuses? Paul VI thought it convenient to carry out a World SURVEY among the episcopate, to which on March 12, 1969, 2,136 bishops had answered. The result was the following:

a) To the question: “Should the wish be accepted that, in addition to the traditional way, the rite of receiving the Sgda. Communion in the hand? They answered:-NO! (Non placet): 1233 Bishops.-YES! (Placet): 567.-According to (Placet iuxta modum): 315.- Invalid votes: 21. There were two more assumptions in the survey; the majority option was also that of NO to Communion in the hand.

5.- Are you aware that the Bishops, chosen by the Holy Spirit to govern the Churches, were consulted (Acts 20,28) but they were ignored, despite the fact that they considered "that must change the current discipline; even more, that the change would be harmful, both for the sentiment and for the spiritual worship of the same bishops and of many faithful? (Mem.Dom.).

6.- Have you noticed that the opinion of the laity was not requested, when according to the C.Vatican II "they have the power and, sometimes, the duty to express their opinion about what they see for the good of the Church? (L.G., 37) This was a clear anti-conciliar attitude.

7.- Did you know that Vatican II did not rule on the practice of Communion in the hand? The approval comes later, in a period of liturgical abuses for which John Paul II asked for forgiveness at "Domini Cenae" (2-24-80).

8.- Did you know that in the first centuries -when Communion was held in the hand- there was a rather imperfect knowledge of the Eucharistic Mystery, and that this gave rise to many abuses and heresies? For example, those of the Arians, Marcionites, Aerians, Anthropomorphites, Artotirites (they offered cheese with the bread in the liturgy), Aquariums (they offered only water in the chalice), Ophites, cataphragues. Some gave the Eucharist to newborns. Others placed it in the mouth of the dead or on the coffin. And there were those who took her home.

9.- Did you know that the Holy Spirit perfects the Church over time? It is something that the C.Vatican II collects: "He chose (God) the People of Israel, with whom he established a Pact, and whom he gradually instructed, also manifesting his divine designs through his History" (L.G., II , 9). "The Holy Spirit himself constantly perfects the Faith by means of his Gifts". (D.V. 1,5). Communion in the hand, took hold above all far from Rome, but it was imposed to do it in the mouth, as it deepened in the understanding of the Mystery, and the sense of indignity and respect grew. Imitating the norms of the Old Alliance, Saint Sixtus I (II century) forbids the laity to touch the sacred vessels, and Saint Gregory Niceno (IV century) that touch the altar But if they received Communion in the hand, they fell into the inconsistency of giving more importance to the container than to the Content. St. John Chrysostom (4th century) warns that the Seraphim who purifies Isaiah's lips with a lit coal, taken from the Altar, does so by means of tongs, while the faithful receive the Most Holy in their hands; and warns: "This (the Eucharist) is much greater than the one touched by the Seraphim." It is another inconsistency: We are not purer than the Seraphim. And when St. Cyril (4th century) explains that the Communicator places his "left hand as a throne on the right" he adds: "take care that not even a fragment is lost . And if... I lost a minimum amount, consider it as truncated from your own members. S. Cirilo foresees the dangers of the Eucharist in the hands of the faithful. These are texts that show how the abandonment of Communion in the hand was taking shape in the first communities, as seen in point 11. And if the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, he had discarded this practice so many centuries ago, why was it allowed again against the vast majority of the Episcopate? Without a doubt, those responsible have "grieved the Holy Spirit."

10.- Did you know that THERE ARE NO BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS to justify the rite of Communion in the hand, but rather to deny it? God reveals the liturgical content in the Old Testament, which Christ does not come to abolish "nor a single tilde”. The Old Testament is like a cliché that has to be revealed in the Christian Era. The rite of not touching sacred things (Num. 4, 15; II Sam 6, 1-9; Jdt 11, 13), comes true in the New Testament when Christ says to the Magdalene (jn, 20, 17): NOLI ME TANGERE! (Do not touch me), and is revalidated when the Church, having reached sufficient maturity in understanding the Eucharistic mystery, prohibits Communion in the hand. Then Psalm 81 is also fulfilled: "Open your mouth and I will fill it", in a passage in which God promises to feed his faithful with "marine flower and honey from the Rock". It is the correct interpretation of the sacred texts in the subject, since the Church prohibited this practice for so many centuries.

11.- Did you know that THERE ARE NO FOUNDATIONS IN TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY to justify Communion in the hand? Already Saint Sixtus I, Pope (115-125) forbids the laity to touch the sacred vessels (Mansi 1, 653) . All the more reason to prohibit Communion in the hand. In the time of Saint Justin (100-166) only deacons give Communion to the faithful (Apology 1, 65,5). This use is confirmed by the Didache (15,1) and by Saint Ignatius of Antioch (+107). Pope Saint Eustaquius (275-283) in his "Exhortation to priests" decrees that "no one has the presumption of making take Communion for a lay person or a woman to a sick person" (Patrol. La. 5, 165). Saint Basilio (329-379) in a letter of the year 372, does not allow Communion in the hand except in some extraordinary situation as in case of persecution (Ep. 93, Greek Patrol, 332, 483,6). Saint Jerome (347-420), secretary of Pope Saint Damasus, applies the Biblical Doctrine (Ex 19,5; ISam 21,5) to disqualify Communion in the hand: "If those who had been with their wives could not eat the Showbread... How much less can that Bread that came down from Heaven be violated and touched by them?" (C. de Panm., 49,15). In the Synod of Rome in the year 404, celebrated under Pope Innocent I (401-417) the rite of Communion on the tongue was imposed (Mansi X, 49,15) Pope Saint Leo I "The Great" (440-461) recalls in his "Sermon V" that the Blessed Sacrament is received on the tongue (Patrología Latina, 54, 1385). Pope Saint Agapito (535-536) cured miraculously to a deaf-mute, whose tongue was released when he was given Communion in his mouth (S. Greg. dial. III, 3). Pope Saint Gregory "The Great" (590-604) gave Communion on the tongue (Patr. Latina, 75, 103). In the Synod of Rouen (649-653), following the line observed in Rome, Communion in the hand is prohibited, and priests who do not comply with these provisions are threatened (Mansi X, 1199-1200 ). In the VI Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) the faithful are prohibited from receiving Communion by themselves, and those who have the audacity to do so are threatened with Excommunication (Mansi XI, 969). Sto. Thomas Aquinas, the “Angelic Doctor” tells us: “Out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing comes into contact with It (The Eucharist) unless it is consecrated; for which reason not only the corporal but also the Chalice and, likewise, the hands of the Priest are consecrated, to touch this Sacrament. From which it follows that it is lawful for no one else to touch it" (Sum. T., III Q, 82, a, 3). That is why St. Francis of Assisi says: "Only they (the Priests) must administer it, and not others". (Letter 2 to all the faithful, 35). These prohibitions are maintained by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) of a dogmatic nature. S. Augustine had already warned: "It would be insolent folly to discuss what to do when all the universal Church has an established practice…”. (Letter 54, 6; to Jenaro). The “Supreme Doctor”, Pope Pius XII, 15 centuries later, maintained the same position: “The reckless audacity of those who intentionally introduce new liturgical customs or revive rites already outdated, and that are not in accordance with the laws and rubrics in force”. (Mediator Dei, 17). And even the C. Vatican II offers us doctrine to disqualify the practice to which we refer: "Although each one of the Prelates, by himself, does not possess the prerogative of Infallibility, nevertheless, if all of them, even though they are scattered throughout the world, but maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, agree on the same opinion as authentic Masters who expound a Doctrine as definitive, in matters of Faith and customs In this case, they infallibly announce the Doctrine of Christ”. (L. G., 5). And the majority of Bishops agreed that Communion in the hand was going to be detrimental to the Church. Thus, one of the Pillars of the True Church has been broken with Tradition.

12.- Did you know that Christ is present in the Particles that detach from the Sacred Form? It is a Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Tradition (“Masterpiece of the Holy Spirit”) with philosophical and theological foundations, from the Holy Fathers ( Origins, Tertullian, Saint Anastasius, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Ephrem, Saint Jerome, Saint Thomas Aquinas...), through the Councils of Trent, up to the present day. That is why in the current liturgy it is ordered that when receiving Communion the Tray or Paten of the faithful be used: "He who receives Communion responds amen, and receives the Sacrament having the Paten under his mouth" (M. Romano, n. 117 ). But who cares about the fate of the Holy Particles when receiving Communion in the hand? And how many Priests have hidden the Paten from the faithful!

13.- Did you know that Communion in the hand contributes to losing the sense of the Sacred? An object is Sacred when it has been segregated, separated from normal use, to be dedicated exclusively to Divine Worship. By receiving Communion in the hand, the rite becomes more sensorial and the symbology is more reminiscent of what a vulgar meal is; but by submitting the Holy to the senses (to touch), by humanizing the divine, by naturalizing the supernatural, the sense of the sacred is lost: a DECACRALIZATION is produced in the most important Mystery for the Faith, emptying it of a good part of its content and efficacy. In a way, by receiving Communion in the hand, the rite is degraded: the Blessed Sacrament is treated as an object… sacred, but an object; like something… a bit special, among my things. It is difficult to understand in that vulgar gesture, the union of our soul with the Most High God. What audacity of our sinful hands! Without having been chosen, consecrated... It is not surprising that after having handled the Blessed Sacrament, the communicant no longer understands the obligation to adore him on his knees, the need to feel nothing before his Creator..., that he is incapable of recognizing the Mystery of the Cross updated in the Sacrament, and that I do not feel the call to an absolute surrender, in correspondence to the Infinite Love of God humiliated in the Sacrament for my Salvation.

14.- Did you know that there are documents that show that Freemasonry, since the 19th century, has tried to get Catholics to receive Communion in the hand and standing up? The secular enemies of the Faith get away with it. How blind on our part!

15.- Did you know that there are non-Catholic churches (sects) that "communicate" in the hand but do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

16.- Did you know that there are Eastern churches -united or separated from Rome- according to the Byzantine rite, which are prohibited from Communion in the hand? This rite, designed for an ecumenical approach (wrong) has therefore turned out to be anti-ecumenical.

17.- Did you know that Pope John Paul II is not in favor of Communion in the hand? He told us in the Letter "Dominicae Cenae": "Touching the Sacred Species, their distribution with one's own hands, is a privilege of the ordained” (24-Feb-80). And so that no one would interpret these words in any other way, three months later, before the French television cameras, he denied Communion in the hand to the wife of the Prime Minister, Giscard DÉstaing. The same year, he declared in Fulda (Germany) that he did not agree with the Document that authorized this form of Communion in this Country. (Cf. “Vox Fidei”, n.10-1981; “Chiesa Viva”, n.112; “Sol de Fátima”, n.82). Why after this date have you been seen giving Communion in some places? Because he has been subjected to strong pressure, making him believe that it would be scandalous for the faithful to prohibit now what was so fraudulently authorized, or to show himself against what some Episcopal Conferences approved. The same thing that Moses allowed divorce "because of the harshness of heart of the Israelites” (Mt. 19, 8).

18.- Did you know that Mother Teresa of Calcutta has stated that the worst evil that occurs in the world is the rite of receiving Communion in the hand? (“The Wanderer”, 3-23-89; “The Fatima Crusader”, 3rd, trim.89). It is logical: it is an inappropriate rite, a cause of desecration and desecration. That's how they get lost. Thank you. "If the Grace of the Lord is worth more than life" (Ps 62,4) and the Eucharist is "the Life of the World" (Jn. 5,51), the alluded to rite is an evil of the first magnitude.

19.- Do you know that supposed apparitions of the Lord or of the Virgin, spread throughout the world, tell us that Heaven does not accept the rite of Communion in the hand? It is not an isolated fact, but a worldwide phenomenon. In countries such as: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Ecuador, Spain, the United States, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Poland..., revelations are attributed to Heaven that disqualify this form of communion.

Milenko: Heaven cannot not accept what the Church has unleashed. I don't know the text of those supposed private revelations. But I think this practice does not please God.

20.- Do you know that -according to what has been proven and as feared- the practice of Communion in the hand has incalculably increased the number of desecrations?

Most frequent objections

1. "Jesus gave Communion in the hand to the Apostles in the Cenacle." The Gospel does not say this. It's just a guess, but even if it were, the apostles were being ordained Bishops. They were not just faithful.

2. "The Church has approved it." Contrary to the opinion of the majority of Bishops in the world. And did they not represent the Church? And the Pope, why did he forbid it in the Diocese of Rome? Isn't he the one who best represents the Church? The laity, who are also the Church, were not consulted either. Furthermore, each Bishop has the authority to approve or deny this rite. In these circumstances, to say that the Church has approved it is not to say the whole Truth.

3. "The tongue is not holier than the hand." It is not a question of anatomy but of dignity. It is a liturgical revelation and a traditional achievement that we must accept with humility and obedience. The Liturgy tells us of the “Holy and Venerable Hands” of Jesus. Such are those of the Priests on the day of their Ordination; but not those of the simple faithful, suitable for profane functions. The hands touch everything, even the lowest; only what is clean and pure is deposited on the tongue. In addition, touching contains a certain expression of dominance over the object, and the Blessed Sacrament is a Gift from Father God, without me deserving it.

4. "It is not a new practice." But it has been surpassed and discarded by the Church, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, walks towards perfection. Communion in the hand is today more than an anachronism: it produces a ruinous involution. With an aggravation: When this practice was used, the Eucharistic Mystery was not understood in such depth. This is confirmed by the Legalization Document.

5. “For the ancient Christians, receiving Communion in the hand meant no less respect than receiving Communion in the mouth.” For some, it did. But the comparison is not valid if the Christians referred to did not know any other way of doing it. and the preaching of the Holy Fathers, already from the 2nd century, urging "Communion with fear and trembling", and forbidding touching the chalice and even the altar, is crying out for the arrival of the rite of Communion in the mouth.

6. "In the hands it is a more natural gesture." But in the Holy Eucharist nothing is natural. Everything is supernatural. Appearances do not give us Life.

7. "In the event of a crowd of faithful, anyone can give Communion so that the ceremony does not last long." It is a temptation. Christ did not give his Body to the multitudes on the Mount of Beatitudes. There he offered only a Eucharistic symbol, and fed them with the Bread of his word. but his Body and his Blood reserved them for the privacy of the cenacle. For this reason, a multitudinous celebration is either well organized (sufficient number of Priests, acolytes, and communion recipients) or the celebration of the Word is left alone.

8. “In some Parishes where, due to the shortage of Priests, they do not have a regular Sunday Mass, it is good that a layman or a nun celebrate the Word and distribute Communion”. New temptation. If there are no Priests, it is necessary to make "rogations" so that the Owner of the Harvest sends workers to his Harvest. And if there is no Mass, the faithful can be organized to say the rosary and/or meditate on the Word and make a Spiritual Communion. Saint Catherine of Siena -Doctor of the Church- tells us that if it were not possible to receive communion, they could receive the same Graces in a Spiritual Communion.

9. “I follow the indications of my Parish Priest or my Bishop”. But they do not follow the example of the Popes.

10. “We are not children to be given food in our mouths”. But we do not receive just any food that our body must assimilate, but rather the contrary: When we receive Communion we must be transformed by Christ, before whom we must feel like children. to enter his kingdom.

11. "The Ceremony is faster if Communion is done in the hand." On the contrary, those who receive Communion in this reprehensible way should: 1º Make an act of Adoration (Roman M). 2º The Priest observes if the communicant's hand is clean (Doc. 3-4-85). 3º The communicant extends his left hand over his right. 4º The Priest shows the S. Form saying "The Body of Christ", and waits for the Faithful to respond Amen 5º The Priest deposits the S Form in the hand of the communicant. 6º This one takes it with his right hand and consumes it in front of the Priest. (Letter attached to M.D.). 7º Both the Priest and the faithful have to verify that there are no Sacred Particles left in the hand. (Inmensae C., 5). So many things and so much time to do something that is not right! The Ceremony is shortened when the faithful kneel along the Communion Table. but it is not a question of speed either, but of dignity. And God spares no time.