“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”

[Cara_Serrano]

I have stayed quite and just listened/read all your arguments.

One stated that such and such would be our future.

One has stated that it is “sacriledge” to take in the hand…

One keeps saying that the Pope wants the tongue cause he had a kneeler put up.

One is badgering another on “What is more religious”

One is worried that we are not eating every little non-visible crumb from the host.

One is saying that those who take on the hand has or will lose the Catholic faith.

Let me put my two cents worth in…

When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, as the Bible teaches, he said “Take and eat” or “take a drink”. Does this suggest that Jesus put the bread on the tongues or HANDED it to the Apostles? As the same with the wine? Think about this…

The Apostles were very ordinary men. Did Jesus tell them"Don’t you drop one molecule!" He only said this is my body which will be given up for you. Jesus knew the Apostles weren’t “educated in table manners”, and just might drop a crumb. But, He didn’t make a big scene out of that possibility, he actually said nothing about it. If it was such a big deal, don’t you think HE would have instructed the Apostles right then?

Was the Apostles being sacariligious? They evidently “took” the bread and wine from Christ.

The Pope has NOT made an official declaration as to what is “his will” is. Someone saw him putting out a kneeler and took it for granted that this is what he wants. Maybe so, but maybe not.
The Pope has stated that NO ONE should be refused the Eucharist because of kneeling or standing, tongue or hand. He was just doing per his own instructions. By making it accessible to kneel, the Pope was showing love to all.

I am really upset when I hear things like, You’ll lose your Catholic faith, or ALL who take on the hand are being irreverent, or don’t have the faith, etc…etc…

I want to know how many of you can actually “SEE the HEARTS” or “KNOW the INTENTIONS” of another, in order to make such
statements as this. This is a shame and disgrace that ANYONE would accuse another fellow Catholic of anything like this.

Would Jesus, himself, tell a person he can’t go to heaven just because he took comunion in the hand? (Not Biblical) But what about those accusing others of non-belief ? (Biblically sinful to judge)

What do you all think.

Is it more sinful to take in the hand rather than the mouth or to judge a fellow christian’s sincerity of faith?

Try showing a little Love…That is what Jesus REALLY taught us. He preached Love.to love another as ourselves.

Isn’t that a part of examination of conscience…(to rethink the 10 commandments and see if you have failed them in any way)

How can one who is to love another as their self, accuse another of non faith or being irreverent.?

Yes, I agree. I believe that when Jesus told the Apostles to “take and eat” His Body and Blood, they didn’t all stick their tongues out at Him! Nevertheless, I am willing to change my practice out of obedience if it becomes the rule of the Church. But that will happen when the Pope decides it, not this forum.

As far as my internal dispositions, my love and reverence for the Holy Eucharist will remain constant regardless of the external form of reception.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

The Apostles were not laymen. Try again.

 

[mullenpm]

DeaconEdB,

How could anyone receive the Holy Eucharist if a Priest or Deacon were not present?

Who would have consecrated the Host?

I am not trying to be obtuse, I don’t understand this statement.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What we are fighting is misinformation about the reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament being put on the forum by those who are members of or sympathetic to the SSPX.
Really??

Yes REALLY!!!

I for one thought this thread had come to a close only to find to my surprise that all of a sudden it resurrected with misinformation being put out. Not by all, by some. If my responses disturb you, I am truly sorry. Look however at what I am responding to. If you believe I an in error in any of my responses, please, using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, show me where I am wrong or in error. To have people say that Popes are in heresy, that to receive in the hand is blasphemous is wrong. This is where you have your error. I cannot and will not ignore it. If Rome says we stop giving in the hand, I stop. No ifs, ands or buts. Until then, it is not for Magisterium want to be’s to be putting out misinformation that will mislead others.

I have disagreed with you in the past on small things… no big deal

Really I am crushed.

But you have, like many others on this thread, decided that the hour has come… again… to just argue about the pros and cons of all reception practices.

Incorrect. The simple answer is that is not our call. People use to obey the Church. Not attack it. I am speaking out about the attacks on practices which the church has OKed. I am pointing out that if people do not want to receive in the hand, they do not have to. I am pointing out that it is not their place to denigrate the Church or those who do receive in the hand.

prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Also, I think the advocates of the Novus Ordo on this forum should at least reconsider their stances on the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass of 2008 is not the Tridentine Mass that people remember. Some of the changes artificially forced into the Novus Ordo have already developed naturally in the Tridentine Mass.

Mallory, You will be completely unable on any thread or any post on this forum to show where I have ever said that the Tridentine Mass should ever be done away with of criticized my me. I have consistently said there is place for both it and the Novus Ordo. What I have also said consistently is that neither is holier than the other, but that they are equally efficacious. I am of the generation that grew up with the Tridentine mass. I did see abuses. They were not the fault of the mass, but of the priest. I have said the same of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo is my preference, but that does not mean I want the others to be done away with. I have pointed out that our Holy Mother Church, in it’s wisdom has given us the option. I do not deny you yours. Neither should you deny me mine. The same holds true for denigrating either mass, which act is sinful in my mind. Please note that I am saying you did this, but there are some on this forum who have done so in ways most vile. That is what I am against.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

How does everyone here feel about self-intinction?

I was in the front row and just happened to look up as a man walked up to the EMHC and dipped the Host in the Precious Blood! The EMHC looked pretty annoyed. I remember when I was a child receiving both on the tongue (via intinction).

I wonder how many more people would receive on the tongue if intinction was offered.

It’s not a matter of how I feel. The Church at this time does not allow intinction in the Latin Rite. (There are some exceptions which I will not get into) In pre Vatican times, when in the seminary, we had an Orthodox priest say mass, which was most beautiful. We were able to receive under both species. This was in the 50’s. Needless to say, it was most special for all of us. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Philothea53]

DeaconEdB,

How could anyone receive the Holy Eucharist if a Priest or Deacon were not present?

Who would have consecrated the Host?

I am not trying to be obtuse, I don’t understand this statement.

Each year our Priests go on retreat for a week. Before they go, enough of the Blessed Sacrament is consecrated to last for the week’s daily ‘Communion Services’. Readings are done but without the Gospel and the Holy Eucharist is brought from the Tabernacle and distributed by either our resident Sister or one of the Deacons.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

DeaconEdB,

How could anyone receive the Holy Eucharist if a Priest or Deacon were not present?

Who would have consecrated the Host?

I am not trying to be obtuse, I don’t understand this statement.

Only the priest can consecrate the host and the wine for transubstantiation to take place. A deacon cannot. An Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist would simply remove the Eucharist, already consecrated, from the tabernacle to distribute Communion in the absence of a priest or deacon, or to take Communion to the sick in homes or hospitals. This is an invaluable and most rewarding ministry.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[pnewton]

Also, Archbishop Lefebvre supported translating the readings, as well as the parts of the Mass that change, into the vernacular. This was actually his suggestion, and I would imagine that this will be the true “Mass of the Future.”

You may well be right. I hope as I turn into an old codger (next year or so), that I will be open to what the Church does, even if I am not used to it. I really believe that the Church has the best interest of the faithful at heart. After all, to paraphrase, man was not made for the Mass, but rather the Mass was made for man.

 

[CradleCath]

Prior generations wanted a revolution. The Vatican II generation wanted to get rid of tradition and orthodoxy.

The stats show people my age are more orthodox, conservative and traditional than the previous generations.

The TLM is exploding due to Catholics in their 20’s and even early 30’s. Young Catholic families are attending the TLM in huge numbers compared to the absense of any youth in the novus ordo.

We don’t care about revolution, the new theology, “spirit of Vatican II” or the “signs of the times”. We care about restoration.

I would like to apologize to you, on behalf of my generationn (I’m 66) , for the mess…within our Church…that we’ve left for you to clean up. Just know that some of us have faced our errors & the truth. Thank God for you young people!! You will join with Christ in saving the one, holy, Catholic & apostolic Church.
Dominus Vobiscum.

 

[MrS]

It’s not a matter of how I feel. The Church at this time does not allow intinction in the Latin Rite. (There are some exceptions which I will not get into) In pre Vatican times, when in the seminary, we had an Orthodox priest say mass, which was most beautiful. We were able to receive under both species. This was in the 50’s. Needless to say, it was most special for all of us. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Did you actually mean this? There are an awful lot of solid Catholic Priests who need your (name removed by moderator)ut then…

 

[bobzills]

It’s not a matter of how I feel. The Church at this time does not allow intinction in the Latin Rite.

And is it allowed in the Eastern rite?
What is the purpose of not allowing intinction?

 

[brigid12]

How is it that we automatically assume that receiving Communion in the hand leads to irreverence? There may be some correlation, but it doesn’t logically follow that it should be held solely responsible.

Correlation does not imply causation. Indeed, many things have changed since Vatican II. Society as a whole is less respectful. There is less respect of the young for the old, less respect for government and government officials, less respect for the law, and, as a matter of fact, less respect for the dignity inherent in the office of bishop…just as examples. I would like to add that this lack of respect hardly confines itself to the liberal end of the opinion scale!

Educational standards have fallen, and with them the standards in catechesis. Again, this cannot be traced directly back to the mode by which Communion is received.

Now, if our cardinals were to decide for whatever reason that a return to a more formal way of receiving Communion is in order, I would live with that. If they were to decide that extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist needed to be done away with, I would live with that, even if the parishes had to move all their 10:30 Masses to 11 o’clock to accomodate the change. If they changed the standards of church architecture, I would live with that. Whereever these things are currently defined and not observed, I do not think they need to refrain from issuing admonishments and enforcing compliance. Likewise, if it is their decision to approach problems in observance in other ways, for pastoral reasons, I will defer to them on that. It is fully within their authority to decide these things. I’d like to add that the bishops tend to raise these questions with each other in a far more respectful manner than what I’ve seen the laity do, even when the bishops are being very forceful in making their points. In this, they have my admiration.

I really find it hard to stand by and hear our bishops referred to as “wolves” or the Curia referred to as “bullies”, particularly from people (which may not include present company) who repeatedly call for similar tactics to be used to enforce the disciplines they like. I hear such talk from both liberals and conservatives, and I’d like to go on record as saying that it seems out of place and unnecessary to communication of disagreement.

Can we please agree that whatever mode is allowed, we are bound to show respect to those in rightful authority within the Church, no matter what we think of them or what they teach? If you can’t be patient, kind, and respectful, you have blown the second great commandment already. That is a failure of a fundamental kind.

I’m not just saying, “Hey, play nice.” Jesus said that the world would know us as his disciples by how we loved each other. If you read the Gospel of John, you appreciate how fundamental mutual love and respect among the brethren is to our fidelity to the Gospel. We are commanded to do it, that is the truth, and no excuses.

EasterJoy - this is one quite Catholic post! I am one who much prefers receiving on the tongue and kneeling, however yours is a most charitable post that looks at a very important point as far as a fundamental “mutual love and respect among the brethren” - a point that is all too often forgotten in some of the posts I see here.
Although I’m one who is glad that I have some eminent theologians (including our Holy Fathery) and some recently canonized Saints who agree with me in their preferrence of receiving kneeling and on the tongue, I am very glad to be in communion with you!

 

[Badaliyyah]

And is it allowed in the Eastern rite?
What is the purpose of not allowing intinction?

Yes it is allowed. It is how my Church (Melkites) always receives. You come forward. The priest dips the piece of bread in the wine and the priest places it on the tongue.

This is in contrast to especially the Rus Byzantine Churches which mix the bread and wine together and the person receives the Eucharist on a small spoon which the priest places on the tongue. I believe this was also Melkite practice until the 20th century, but am not positive.

salaam.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Did you actually mean this? **INTINCTION **There are an awful lot of solid Catholic Priests who need your (name removed by moderator)ut then…

Insertion of bolded word intinction = mine

Your comment made me go to my Canon Law book and commentary. Canon 924 covers this issue of intinction. Nothing is mentioned in the Canon itself, but is mentioned in the commentary under the section for “Alcoholic Priests”. The following is the only paragraph which I could find which addresses the matter.

---

“When concelebrating, priests recovering from alcoholism who are unable to consume wine may receive communion by intinction or they receive under the species of the bread alone. This is a general faculty for which no specific permission is needed. The local ordinary may permit those who celebrate alone to receive by intinction, leaving it to an assistant to consume the consecrated wine.” ***

I have been told by my pastor, an auxiliary bishops and a Canon Law professor, that by extension. intinction is not to be allowed for the laity. I cannot find in the Code where it is prohibited to the laity. The explanation given to me was that since the commentary addresses priests only and the conditions under which they can receive by intinction that it is not to be extended to the laity. They are to receive under the species of bread alone if for any reason they cannot receive under the species of wine.

For a minute I thought it was up to the local ordinary, but the Commentary on Canon #924 seems to say otherwise. If anyone has any documented information other than this, please let us know.

Note, this applies to the Latin Rite only. I do know that Eastern Rites do so. Why the difference. I do not know. I simply obey.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[MrS]

Insertion of bolded word intinction = mine

Your comment made me go to my Canon Law book and commentary. Canon 924 covers this issue of intinction. Nothing is mentioned in the Canon itself, but is mentioned in the commentary under the section for “Alcoholic Priests”. The following is the only paragraph which I could find which addresses the matter.

***“When concelebrating, priests recovering from alcoholism who are unable to consume wine may receive communion by intinction or they receive under the species of the bread alone. This is a general faculty for which no specific permission is needed. The local ordinary may permit those who celebrate alone to receive by intinction, leaving it to an assistant to consume the consecrated wine.” ***

I have been told by my pastor, an auxiliary bishops and a Canon Law professor, that by extension. intinction is not to be allowed for the laity. I cannot find in the Code where it is prohibited to the laity. The explanation given to me was that since the commentary addresses priests only and the conditions under which they can receive by intinction that it is not to be extended to the laity. They are to receive under the species of bread alone if for any reason they cannot receive under the species of wine.

For a minute I thought it was up to the local ordinary, but the Commentary on Canon #924 seems to say otherwise. If anyone has any documented information other than this, please let us know.

Note, this applies to the Latin Rite only. I do know that Eastern Rits do so. Why the difference. I do not know. I simply obey.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

According to the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum: “[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, …”.
The document has at its conclusion:
“[186.] … This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.”

For people to receive Communion by intinction the correct method is given in the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):
“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”

In the 1975 GIRM it is at 246(b):
“The communicants approach, make the proper reverence, stand in front of the priest, and hold the communion plate below their chin. The celebrant dips a particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: The body and blood of Christ. The communicants respond: Amen, receive communion from the priest, and return to their place.”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-01/contini.html

adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html

Holy See’s 1970 document on Communion under both kinds, Sacramentali Communione, had expressed a *preference for intinction *in many circumstances. This is found in §6 (ironically, the very section that is usually cited to justify the preference for receiving directly from the chalice). It is revealing to read this section in its entirety:
6. 1) For a fitting administration of Communion under both kinds care must be taken that all is done with proper reverence and that the rite outlined in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal nos. 244-251 is observed.
2) The character of the particular liturgical assembly as well as the age, circumstances, and preparation of the communicants should be considered, then the choice should be made of the way of giving Communion that insures its being done with dignity, devotion, propriety, and the avoidance of the danger of irreverence.
3) Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first. Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ.
4) When they are available, other priests or deacons or even acolytes should be chosen to present the chalice. The method of communicating in which the communicants pass the chalice to one another or go directly to the chalice to take Christ’s blood must be regarded as unacceptable.
5) Whenever none of the ministers already mentioned is available, if the communicants are few and are to receive Communion under both kinds by drinking directly from the chalice, the priest himself distributes Communion, first under the form of bread, then under the form of wine.
6) Otherwise the preference should be for the rite of Communion under both kinds by intinction: it is more likely to obviate the practical difficulties and to ensure the reverence due the Sacrament more effectively. Intinction makes access to Communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful of all ages and conditions; at the same time it preserves the truth present in the more complete sign. (Emphasis added)
Generally, only the first part of no. 3 above is quoted – that is, receiving directly from the chalice “ranks first”. Cited in isolation, this seems to support the view that drinking from the chalice is always to be preferred. But “sign value” is not the main emphasis of this section. Three times this short passage stresses that the distribution of the Blood of Christ must be done with the proper reverence. And it explicitly states that drinking from the chalice is to be chosen only if it can be carried out with due dignity and reverence. Intinction is often to be preferred – and is “easier and safer”, the directive says. Safety here refers to the concern that drinking from the common chalice might spread disease – a concern dismissed by most liturgists, sometimes with rather bizarre arguments.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

According to the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum: “[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, …”.
The document has at its conclusion:
“[186.] … This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.”

For people to receive Communion by intinction the correct method is given in the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):
“287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.”

In the 1975 GIRM it is at 246(b):
“The communicants approach, make the proper reverence, stand in front of the priest, and hold the communion plate below their chin. The celebrant dips a particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: The body and blood of Christ. The communicants respond: Amen, receive communion from the priest, and return to their place.”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-01/contini.html

adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html

Holy See’s 1970 document on Communion under both kinds, Sacramentali Communione, had expressed a *preference for intinction *in many circumstances. This is found in §6 (ironically, the very section that is usually cited to justify the preference for receiving directly from the chalice). It is revealing to read this section in its entirety:
6. 1) For a fitting administration of Communion under both kinds care must be taken that all is done with proper reverence and that the rite outlined in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal nos. 244-251 is observed.
2) The character of the particular liturgical assembly as well as the age, circumstances, and preparation of the communicants should be considered, then the choice should be made of the way of giving Communion that insures its being done with dignity, devotion, propriety, and the avoidance of the danger of irreverence.
3) Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first. Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ.
4) When they are available, other priests or deacons or even acolytes should be chosen to present the chalice. The method of communicating in which the communicants pass the chalice to one another or go directly to the chalice to take Christ’s blood must be regarded as unacceptable.
5) Whenever none of the ministers already mentioned is available, if the communicants are few and are to receive Communion under both kinds by drinking directly from the chalice, the priest himself distributes Communion, first under the form of bread, then under the form of wine.
6) Otherwise the preference should be for the rite of Communion under both kinds by intinction: it is more likely to obviate the practical difficulties and to ensure the reverence due the Sacrament more effectively. Intinction makes access to Communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful of all ages and conditions; at the same time it preserves the truth present in the more complete sign. (Emphasis added)
Generally, only the first part of no. 3 above is quoted – that is, receiving directly from the chalice “ranks first”. Cited in isolation, this seems to support the view that drinking from the chalice is always to be preferred. But “sign value” is not the main emphasis of this section. Three times this short passage stresses that the distribution of the Blood of Christ must be done with the proper reverence. And it explicitly states that drinking from the chalice is to be chosen only if it can be carried out with due dignity and reverence. Intinction is often to be preferred – and is “easier and safer”, the directive says. Safety here refers to the concern that drinking from the common chalice might spread disease – a concern dismissed by most liturgists, sometimes with rather bizarre arguments.

Thank you for this. I was not aware of it. It still comes down however to whether the local ordinary permits this method of giving Communion. I do know in my archdiocese our archbishop does not. What do we say, " When in Rome…"
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But did you not say on another post that only those with consecrated hands should touch the Eucharist. As a deacon, I am ordained, but a deacons hands are not consecrated. Yet we are ordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist.

At the last parish I was at, there was a man who would refuse to receive Communion from anyone other than a priest. I call this cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If a priest or deacon were not available, would you receive from an Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I am in total agreement with deacons touching the Eucharist. They have been ordained. I did not mean to exclude deacons.

No Catholic should have a problem with recieving the Eucharist from them because they are the ordinary minister of Communion.

Most parishes have deacons so there is no need for EMHC. A deacon could show up on all the Masses at the time of distribution and help the priest distribute Communion.

Of coarse I would recieve the Eucharist if a priest or deacon was not available. That would justify the need for an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. However, if there was no priest you would not have a Mass. It would be a Communion service. I would find another parish that had a Mass, unless there is none remotely close.