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

[Deacon_Ed_B]

who did the pope give communion in the hand too? ".

That is very obviously a question I am unable to answer, being unable to identify each person in the United States. I am sorry, but my condition is called human.
If you watched the televised masses which the pope celebrated when he was here in the U.S. you would have seen him distributing on the tongue, as well as in the hand, to those people who received Communion from him.
Prayers and Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Speak for yourself.

I’m not even minimum wage…I’m just a volunteer.

Gee, are you a deacon too?. I too am a volunteer and receive no pay for what I do. In fact I have to buy all my own vestments,(which are not cheap) provide my own car, buy my own gas for all I do as a deacon. Most deacons receive no pay, except those who are hired in some official capacity for a parish, such as administrator, director, etc. But the pay is out of this world. (my humor)
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Also - I have been scoffed at for recieving on the toungue by a priest and a so called “Eucharistic minister”.

Clearly this was wrong. No one, and I mean no one should be scoffed at on how they receive our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

pre vatican II. the practive of recieving on the toungue evolved from recieving on the hand. I believe the church started the pratice of on the toungue because of the abuses that we are seeing today.

Respectfully, I disagree with changing something because a few who abuse. What I mean is, we shouldn’t take away from those who reverently receive because there’s some who don’t. Since some receive unworthily, should we stop communion without attending confession first? Or in the case of some abuses, should we have the priest visually check to see if the host was consumed?

Peace,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Gee, are you a deacon too?. I too am a volunteer and receive no pay for what I do. In fact I have to buy all my own vestments,(which are not cheap) provide my own car, buy my own gas for all I do as a deacon. Most deacons receive no pay, except those who are hired in some official capacity for a parish, such as administrator, director, etc. But the pay is out of this world. (my humor)
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

:bowdown2:

Not I. I am just one of the run of the mill volunteers.

Peace,
Prodigal Son1

 

[MrS]

Respectfully, I disagree with changing something because a few who abuse. What I mean is, we shouldn’t take away from those who reverently receive because there’s some who don’t. Since some receive unworthily, should we stop communion without attending confession first? Or in the case of some abuses, should we have the priest visually check to see if the host was consumed?

Peace,
Prodigal Son1

I agree with you.

I have noticed in local parishes, that when the laity are given more latitude (less direction) they could go either way… more traditional postures, demeanor etc, or more current signs of same. Depends on the priest direction or lack thereof.

Sure, I prefer the latter, (kneeling, on the tongue, etc). But perhaps only a real insight of one’s “level of belief” in the Real Presence might show any correlation between the old and the new. I don’t think that is possible… to know another’s heart.

I wish it were that simple… stronger belief in the RP = kneel/tongue

But I both know better, and it is not for me to judge. I can only say that personally, when my belief was weak and perhaps non-existent, I did not care what or how anyone else received.

So that is what I often think about today. Who is it who really does not care what the other one thinks. And I may be wrong, but it seems like those who are more prone to accept either method are also those who prefer to receive in the hand.

Conversely, those who are more “stubborn” wish that “The hour has come…” like me

.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Respectfully, I disagree with changing something because a few who abuse. What I mean is, we shouldn’t take away from those who reverently receive because there’s some who don’t. Since some receive unworthily, should we stop communion without attending confession first? Or in the case of some abuses, should we have the priest visually check to see if the host was consumed?

But the problems is, the church decreed it was wrong to receive in the hand. The Bishops ignored the decree and the Pope basically sighed and shrugged his shoulders and gave up. And I think it is more than a few who abuse it. I was at a wedding a couple of years back in south jersey and witnessed kids grabbing the host from the priest and running with it. He had to stop the mass and chase after them. He then only gave the host on the tongue. Also - how about the host consecrated by PJII that was for sale on ebay? There are other stories about the host being abused such as priests finding them in the pews after mass.

I don’t understand why it is absolutely necessary to go back to the practices of the early church when the church evolved over the years? Why was it such a problem to receive on the tongue for all these years?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But the problems is, the church decreed it was wrong to receive in the hand. The Bishops ignored the decree and the Pope basically sighed and shrugged his shoulders and gave up. And I think it is more than a few who abuse it. I was at a wedding a couple of years back in south jersey and witnessed kids grabbing the host from the priest and running with it. He had to stop the mass and chase after them. He then only gave the host on the tongue. Also - how about the host consecrated by PJII that was for sale on ebay? There are other stories about the host being abused such as priests finding them in the pews after mass.

Wouldn’t you agree the abuses are as bad as one receiving communion in an unworthy state? If this is so, do you think it should be you can only receive communion after confession?

Ebay will not permit the sale of consecrated hosts on their website. After Pope Benedict XI visited the US, one appeared on Ebay with a starting bid of 99 cents. Before one bid had been placed, Ebay removed the auction. Would it be safe to say, God works in mysterious ways.

To think that changing it so that one can only receive on the tongue will stop abuses is naive. The second Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano was also known as the Eucharistic Miracle of Offida. Ricciarella was the woman’s name. I read, “…she turned away from the priest quickly, so that she could remove the Lord from her mouth. She made sure she was not caught in the act.” That happened in 1273. If someone is out to abuse, they will find a way.

This brings me back to the other point I posted. Is it time to have the priest start inspecting our mouths to make sure the host has been consumed?

I don’t understand why it is absolutely necessary to go back to the practices of the early church when the church evolved over the years? Why was it such a problem to receive on the tongue for all these years?

One could argue, why it was necessary to have an evolution of the way Christ taught the practice originally?

I’m not so sure of our faith in the Holy Spirit protecting the Church if we believe He allowed the Pope to sigh and shrug his shoulders to make a decision that affects Christ’s Church and the traditions with in it.

While it’s ok to discuss this subject, I feel it’s wrong to argue the subject which can be dividing. In my opinion we should pray about the subject and trust in the Holy Spirit bring about the practice according to God’s will.

Our Church has survived much harder tests than this. I believe the Holy Spirit will protect Her as He has done for 2000+ years. That’s why I say, I will do whatever the Church decrees on this matter.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1

 

[bobzills]

But the problems is, the church decreed it was wrong to receive in the hand. The Bishops ignored the decree and the Pope basically sighed and shrugged his shoulders and gave up.

Well, this is not really anything new is it? We see quotes from Church documents that liturgical dancing is not allowed, but it occurs on many occasions. The rule affecting women at the altar, or wearing head covering has been changed, as have many other rules which have been thrown out since Vatican II.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Let’s just say that when Rome speaks, I will be among the first to do whatever the Magisterium dictates. Until then, argument or discussion on our part who are not among the Magisterium will change nothing. As one poster said on another thread, and it is so true, we are not management, we are in sales. Lets sell what Rome says, not what we think it should say.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

No, you’re not management, but as a deacon, you are on the payroll. The rest of us are just volunteers.

 

[Anacharius]

I would love to see the communion rail back in place, hands folded in reverence. I really don’t kow why the rail was taken away, but if it was to make communion go faster, it was for the wrong reason. Spending an addidtional 2 minutes in church might be a good thing.
The symbolic of the altar railing, “we” being separated from God, due too original sin, personal sin, etc., and after the Aspereges, the gates to the Altar are closed, symbolizing that the Gates to
Heaven has been shut due too the fall of Adam & Eve. Mass begins, the saving history of our redemption is taking place with Christ Jesus being the central focal point. When Mass is over the Priest or Server come out and open the Altar railing gate symbolizing that Christ Jesus is up in Heaven and unlocked the Gate of Heaven thus giving “us” a chance ( hope ) of getting to Heaven when we die.

 

[JReducation]

No, you’re not management, but as a deacon, you are on the payroll. The rest of us are just volunteers.

Actually, it’s the other way around. Deacons are part of management. They have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. That makes them part of the clergy. They are no longer laymen. Permanent deacons are not religious. They are diocesan, just like a diocesan priest or diocesan bishop.

Most permanent deacons are not on the payroll, unless they are employed by the diocese or the parish. This is not usually the case. The deacons that minister at our parish are part of the pastoral staff, but they are not employees of the parish. They are not part of the parish administration. Therefore, they do not get paid. They preach, baptize, witness weddings, burry the dead, take viaticum to the sick and fullfill all the duties that are part of their state in the Church.

However, our parish is administered by a religioius order and the permanent deacons are not part of the order. Therefore, they are not on the payroll, but they are part of the clergy and they do make a promise of obedience to the bishop. They are part of the apostolic succession.

The difference between the permanent deacons and the friars in the parish is that the friars do not make a promise of obedience to the bishop, only to their religious superior. Their relationship with the bishop is contractual and legal.

The parish belongs to the diocese. Therefore, the friars must follow diocesan rules in matters concerning the parish, not their persons. The permanent deacons, on the other hand are subject to the bishop regarding their persons.

For example, the bishop can reassign the deacons, but cannot assign or reassign the friars, because he is not their superior. The bishop can suspend a deacon. He cannot suspend a religious priest. The most authority that he has over a religious priest is to revoke his faculties in his diocese.

There is a great deal that we the laity do not know about the relationship of permanent deacons to the hierarchy of the Church. But this is probably better for another thread.

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, you’re not management, but as a deacon, you are on the payroll. The rest of us are just volunteers.

I am??? During formation we were told we would have to be self supporting as we would not be paid by the diocese unless we were hired in an official capacity, such as director, administrator or some such. Have they been withholding something from me.? If so, I’ve got 17 years of back pay coming. But I will admit that the pay is out of this world.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Well, this is not really anything new is it? We see quotes from Church documents that liturgical dancing is not allowed, but it occurs on many occasions. The rule affecting women at the altar, or wearing head covering has been changed, as have many other rules which have been thrown out since Vatican II.

What about all the things that were changed within the Church BEFORE Vatican II ?

The traditionalist crowd likes to toss around every little thing that changed SINCE Vatican II as if it were the direct work of Satan.

What about the changes in the 1900 years prior to Vatican II.?

 

[JReducation]

But the problems is, the church decreed it was wrong to receive in the hand. The Bishops ignored the decree and the Pope basically sighed and shrugged his shoulders and gave up. And I think it is more than a few who abuse it. I was at a wedding a couple of years back in south jersey and witnessed kids grabbing the host from the priest and running with it. He had to stop the mass and chase after them. He then only gave the host on the tongue. Also - how about the host consecrated by PJII that was for sale on ebay? There are other stories about the host being abused such as priests finding them in the pews after mass.

I don’t understand why it is absolutely necessary to go back to the practices of the early church when the church evolved over the years? Why was it such a problem to receive on the tongue for all these years?

I think there are several considerations worth looking at here.

1. What may have started as a so called abuse, distributing communion in the hand, was legitimized by the Holy See. Therefore it’s a moot issue to go back to how started. Many things in the Church were not well planned or orchestrated from their inception and eventually became part of pastoral or liturgical practice. For example using young boys as altar servers rose out of necessity. Originally, ony acolytes could serve on the altars and acolytes had to be adult men in minor orders. Bishops who were short of acolytes began to “deputize” young boys. They could not call them acolytes, because they had not received minor orders, so the term altar boys arose. Eventually, it was accepted by the Holy See, because it was too wide spread to stop it.
2. One can certainly raise the question, whether or not this works well or even whether or not it’s a good idea. It’s certainly a valid question.
3. The fact that someone on E-Bay claims that they have a host consecrated by the Holy Father, does not guarrantee that such is the case. The Holy Father does not autograph the hosts that he consecrates like a baseball player does with a ball. That one has to be taken with a grain of salt and pray that such is not the case.
4. Communion in the hand is a small issue compared to other sins and crimes committed against the Eucharist. Does anyone remember that Archbishop Romero was assasinated while he was lifting the chalice at consecration and the precious blood and sacred hosts were all over the sanctuary. People have broken into churches to steal the tabernacle or the ceboriums to sell them, because of their gold. This has been a major problem in some major cities. In history there were invasions of cities that included desecrating churches.

These are just a few things to think about.

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

No, you’re not management, but as a deacon, you are on the payroll. The rest of us are just volunteers.

I’ve got news for you…some of us get more responsibility than others, but it’s a “family business”, and we’ve all been signed on to act like (and, praise God, be treated like!) heirs.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’ve got news for you…some of us get more responsibility than others, but it’s a “family business”, and we’ve all been signed on to act like (and, praise God, be treated like!) heirs.

Beautiful
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I am??? During formation we were told we would have to be self supporting as we would not be paid by the diocese unless we were hired in an official capacity, such as director, administrator or some such. Have they been withholding something from me.? If so, I’ve got 17 years of back pay coming. But I will admit that the pay is out of this world.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Sorry, all the deacons I know are working full time for their diocese. With the clergy shortage, I didn’t realize there would be any unemployed deacons.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, all the deacons I know are working full time for their diocese. With the clergy shortage, I didn’t realize there would be any unemployed deacons.

All deacons work for the diocese. Only those who are administrators are paid. The rest have to hold secular jobs as well as work for the diocese.

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

Sorry, all the deacons I know are working full time for their diocese. With the clergy shortage, I didn’t realize there would be any unemployed deacons.

Oh, no, they’re not unemployed, they’re just not all paid. Kind of like parents.

“What lovely kids…do you work?”