Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches

[Supercatholic]

I have only just seen this forum so I apologise for joining it late with a comment.

Recently we had World Youth Day here in Sydney. At ALL the masses the communicants who received from the Holy Father were required to kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

What amazes me is that the whole world saw what the Pope preferred during these World Youth Day masses and yet this has had almost NO impact back in the parishes where most people receive Holy Communion on the hand.

Why haven’t the bishops and priests taken note of the example the Pope has set?

That’s a good question. I wonder if they have EWTN in the rectories so they can see how Rome is doing things. I can only suspect that the priests of local parishes are either ignorant as to what’s going on in Rome or are afraid to implement communion on the tongue only for fear of losing some parishiners to another parish and others to stop attending mass altogether. They could try this at a diocese level, but that may cause a problem on a large scale level. Since communion in the hand was taught to many of us in Sunday school, the only thing that may possibly work is to go back to teaching Sunday schoolers communion on the tongue only. Not from any credible survey, but just from talking to people and reading internet opinions, I find that many people in favor of communion in the hand are also in favor of priests getting married, ordaining women to the priesthood, that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest, that staying home and praying to God is just as acceptable as going to mass, and that the eucharist is not the real presence of Christ, but only a symbolic ritual. I can see the communion in the hand activists taking a hostile stance now.

 

[holy_moly]

That’s a good question. I wonder if they have EWTN in the rectories so they can see how Rome is doing things. I can only suspect that the priests of local parishes are either ignorant as to what’s going on in Rome or are afraid to implement communion on the tongue only for fear of losing some parishiners to another parish and others to stop attending mass altogether. They could try this at a diocese level, but that may cause a problem on a large scale level. Since communion in the hand was taught to many of us in Sunday school, the only thing that may possibly work is to go back to teaching Sunday schoolers communion on the tongue only. **Not from any credible survey, but just from talking to people and reading internet opinions, I find that many people in favor of communion in the hand are also in favor of priests getting married, ordaining women to the priesthood, that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest, that staying home and praying to God is just as acceptable as going to mass, and that the eucharist is not the real presence of Christ, but only a symbolic ritual. I can see the communion in the hand activists taking a hostile stance now./**QUOTE]

By making such blasphemous, ridiculous comments SC, you will create your own activists…

 

[eggplant911]

You said it yourself, Supercatholic - you make your premise based on nothing credible.

 

[holy_moly]

The mouth is where we chew the Sacred Host and thereby - by consuming the offering - participate in the Holy Sacrifice. The hands are not necessary for this (since it can be administered straight to the mouth) and contact with them should therefore be avoided in order not to unnecessarily profane the Body of Our Lord.

What would you say then to EUM’s administering the Blessed Sacrament at a nursing home because there is no priest available to do it? In this case unconsecrated hands are dispensing the hosts…

 

[Supercatholic]

You said it yourself, Supercatholic - you make your premise based on nothing credible.

I said there is no credible SURVEY, meaning documented, but talking to people is a CREDIBLE premise. And all the people I talk to do hold to their personal opinions that the church should conform to the whims of modern society. Therefore my premise is based on EVERYTHING credible.

 

[rjs1]

I said there is no credible SURVEY, meaning documented, but talking to people is a CREDIBLE premise. And all the people I talk to do hold to their personal opinions that the church should conform to the whims of modern society. Therefore my premise is based on EVERYTHING credible.

Supercatholic you have managed to really upset two posters. Perhaps you struck a “raw nerve”, or perhaps deep down they suspect that your guess is right.

I would make the following point: it certainly would not be the case that every person who receives in the hand would believe the non Catholic things you listed. However, I would guarantee that no one who received on the tongue would believe the non Catholic things you listed. It just doesn’t go together.

(Now watch the posters “dump” on me!)

 

[eggplant911]

No, Super, your premise is based on the people you talk to - or argue with - who tell you their opinions. It’s a scewed group, so your conclusion is scewed. Everybody who asks you to explain your position is not your enemy. To take the argument ad hominem is a stretch.

 

[Supercatholic]

Supercatholic you have managed to really upset two posters. Perhaps you struck a “raw nerve”, or perhaps deep down they suspect that your guess is right.

I would make the following point: it certainly would not be the case that every person who receives in the hand would believe the non Catholic things you listed. However, I would guarantee that no one who received on the tongue would believe the non Catholic things you listed. It just doesn’t go together.

(Now watch the posters “dump” on me!)

Thank you for being aware of my point. But if you reread(long E) my post, you’ll see I wrote “many” not “all or most” people in favor of communion in the hand. Many, is kind of an abstract distinction. It could range from 1000 to 100,000,000. So for example, if 50 million communicants receive the eucharist in the hand, and only 8 million support the non-catholic things I listed, the 8 million is still many. When the posters “dump” on you, and “dump” on you they will, as they’ll also “dump” on me, I’ll do my best to come to your aid.

 

[Cecilianus]

In defense of Super’s points, shouldn’t we look at the reasons for instituting Communion in the hand to begin with? So far, those of us arguing for the traditional Catholic practice of communion in the mouth have offered plenty of reasons for preserving this practice, but none have been offered in defense of why Communion in the hand would be more desirable.

I can think of three possible reasons to start with, all of them either trivial or bad.

1. Hygiene. Unfortunately, however, in fact all priests that I have ever received Communion from have been able to administer the Sacred Host without getting my saliva on their hand; it’s not difficult. By contrast, the Byzantine Rite of the Church administers Communion through a golden spoon which gets all over the inside of my mouth, and ought to spread germs all over the place (especially since babies are receiving Communion!). Yet people at the church I attend on a weekly basis - a Ukrainian church - do not get sick any more than other churchgoers do, and an Orthodox friend of mine explained to me that the sacred species are consecrated and therefore do not spread germs - nobody gets sick very often at her church either. Hygiene simply isn’t a problem.
2. It was the original practice of the Church. We have progressed since then, however, and no Catholic would want to undo other legimitate forms of growth - such as having physical church buildings, organ music, defined doctrines, etc. etc. The Church must undergo true growth and development; it is simply bizarre to wish to literally go back to the Dark Ages.
3. It breaks down the barrier between the priest and the faithful, and makes the Mass seem more intimate - less like a sacrificial liturgy and more like a family meal. This is called heresy.

But I don’t receive Communion in the hand, so I offer those who do the chance to give their reasons why.

 

[otjm]

holding hands during the Dominical Prayer (even though this is still forbidden by the rubrics),

Lets get down to the nut of this. These are your personal opinions. As to the holding hands during the Our Father, not to side-track this post, there simply is nothing in the rubrics about hand posture for the laity for almost the entire Mass including the Our Father. People far more educated in the rubrics than you ha said so, and if you don’t believe that, you might check out what Archbishop Chaput has had to say about it - and he is hardly what one would call a liberal.

As with that comment, your commentary on the issue and many side ventures are personal opinions, and we are all holders of such things, whether or not they agree with the realities on which they are held.

You don’t want to receive in the hand? Ten receive on the tongue, which is your right. But be very, very cautious of your attitude towards receiving in the hand; it comes altogether too close to being judgemental of those who do. As I have said before, I belong to a parish where the great majority receive in the hand; we also have 24 hour Perpetual Adoration. Receiving in the hand is no less holy, no less respectful of the Eucharist, no less reverent than receiving on the tongue. You may argue as long as you wish that there is an intrinsic difference between the two modes, but failing to understand that what you argue about is impacted by inculturation simply ocbscures the reality that the mode is not the issue; the attitude is. Those who have an attitude of reverence will receive reverentially, no matter the mode. Those who don’t will not be made reverential by the mode.

 

[holy_moly]

Lets get down to the nut of this. These are your personal opinions. As to the holding hands during the Our Father, not to side-track this post, there simply is nothing in the rubrics about hand posture for the laity for almost the entire Mass including the Our Father. People far more educated in the rubrics than you ha said so, and if you don’t believe that, you might check out what Archbishop Chaput has had to say about it - and he is hardly what one would call a liberal.

As with that comment, your commentary on the issue and many side ventures are personal opinions, and we are all holders of such things, whether or not they agree with the realities on which they are held.

You don’t want to receive in the hand? Ten receive on the tongue, which is your right. But be very, very cautious of your attitude towards receiving in the hand; it comes altogether too close to being judgemental of those who do. As I have said before, I belong to a parish where the great majority receive in the hand; we also have 24 hour Perpetual Adoration. Receiving in the hand is no less holy, no less respectful of the Eucharist, no less reverent than receiving on the tongue. You may argue as long as you wish that there is an intrinsic difference between the two modes, but failing to understand that what you argue about is impacted by inculturation simply ocbscures the reality that the mode is not the issue; the attitude is. Those who have an attitude of reverence will receive reverentially, no matter the mode. Those who don’t will not be made reverential by the mode.

BINGO!

 

[holy_moly]

;5407920:

In defense of Super’s points, shouldn’t we look at the reasons for instituting Communion in the hand to begin with? So far, those of us arguing for the traditional Catholic practice of communion in the mouth have offered plenty of reasons for preserving this practice, but none have been offered in defense of why Communion in the hand would be more desirable.

I can think of three possible reasons to start with, all of them either trivial or bad.

1. Hygiene. Unfortunately, however, in fact all priests that I have ever received Communion from have been able to administer the Sacred Host without getting my saliva on their hand; it’s not difficult. By contrast, the Byzantine Rite of the Church administers Communion through a golden spoon which gets all over the inside of my mouth, and ought to spread germs all over the place (especially since babies are receiving Communion!). Yet people at the church I attend on a weekly basis - a Ukrainian church - do not get sick any more than other churchgoers do, and an Orthodox friend of mine explained to me that the sacred species are consecrated and therefore do not spread germs - nobody gets sick very often at her church either. Hygiene simply isn’t a problem.
2. It was the original practice of the Church. We have progressed since then, however, and no Catholic would want to undo other legimitate forms of growth - such as having physical church buildings, organ music, defined doctrines, etc. etc. The Church must undergo true growth and development; it is simply bizarre to wish to literally go back to the Dark Ages.
3. It breaks down the barrier between the priest and the faithful, and makes the Mass seem more intimate - less like a sacrificial liturgy and more like a family meal. This is called heresy.

But I don’t receive Communion in the hand, so I offer those who do the chance to give their reasons why.

Try this at the nursing home Cecilianus, not so easy!

 

[otjm]

That’s a good question. I wonder if they have EWTN in the rectories so they can see how Rome is doing things. I can only suspect that the priests of local parishes are either ignorant as to what’s going on in Rome or are afraid to implement communion on the tongue only for fear of losing some parishiners to another parish and others to stop attending mass altogether. They could try this at a diocese level, but that may cause a problem on a large scale level. Since communion in the hand was taught to many of us in Sunday school, the only thing that may possibly work is to go back to teaching Sunday schoolers communion on the tongue only. Not from any credible survey, but just from talking to people and reading internet opinions, I find that many people in favor of communion in the hand are also in favor of priests getting married, ordaining women to the priesthood, that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest, that staying home and praying to God is just as acceptable as going to mass, and that the eucharist is not the real presence of Christ, but only a symbolic ritual. I can see the communion in the hand activists taking a hostile stance now.

Essentially what you suggest is that people be denied by their priest what Rome has given them permission for, and that is to receive in the hand. Your insistence is that The great majority of people be forbidden something that Rome has said is permissible. Since they are not insisting that you forgo receiving on the tongue, it is bery interesting that you would suggest that what Rome has permitted a priest should deny.

I ahve no idea where or how you did your survey or how credible it is or reliable. The Church alreadey has married priests, so why you bring that up is beyond understanding. but taking a survey on the internet with no ability to verify anything may be very telling… One can always justify one’s opinion by trying to find someone who supports the opinion. that is not called a valid survey. In short, that is called an ad hominem arguement.

 

[holy_moly]

Essentially what you suggest is that people be denied by their priest what Rome has given them permission for, and that is to receive in the hand. Your insistence is that The great majority of people be forbidden something that Rome has said is permissible. Since they are not insisting that you forgo receiving on the tongue, it is bery interesting that you would suggest that what Rome has permitted a priest should deny.

I ahve no idea where or how you did your survey or how credible it is or reliable. The Church alreadey has married priests, so why you bring that up is beyond understanding. but taking a survey on the internet with no ability to verify anything may be very telling… One can always justify one’s opinion by trying to find someone who supports the opinion. that is not called a valid survey. In short, that is called an ad hominem arguement.

Actually otjm, SC’s whole ‘theory’ is predicated on the fiction/fallacy that communion in the hand is not ok w/ Rome…

 

[otjm]

Actually otjm, SC’s whole ‘theory’ is predicated on the fiction/fallacy that communion in the hand is not ok w/ Rome…

OK. I’ll back off since I don’t deal well with alternate realities.

 

[holy_moly]

OK. I’ll back off since I don’t deal well with alternate realities.

such as parallel universes…?

 

[Cecilianus]

Try this at the nursing home Cecilianus, not so easy!

We’re talking about normal parishes, not nursing homes. Special circumstances should be dealt with on their own.

But I don’t understand why you would think that a nursing home would be a better place to receive Communion in the hand than a normal parish. Serving at the NO Mass at home the only people who received Communion in the hand who dropped the Sacred Host were elderly - because their hands were shaking too much. They should have received on the tongue if only to avoid the Body of Our Lord getting mixed with mud on the floor.

 

[Cecilianus]

Actually otjm, SC’s whole ‘theory’ is predicated on the fiction/fallacy that communion in the hand is not ok w/ Rome…

May I remind you that this whole thread began when the Archbishop of Bologna banned Communion in the hand - as several dioceses around the world have, including, among others, Rome! It’s not encouraged and never was; Rome also permitted the ordination of married men and eunuchs in the past, permitted bishops to fight in battle, and let the political leaders (such as Napoleon) nominate bishops - none of which were “okay” with them in the sense that they approved. They were indults granted to prevent greater evils, generally during periods of widespread laxity and weakness of the Church.

 

[holy_moly]

We’re talking about normal parishes, not nursing homes. Special circumstances should be dealt with on their own.

But I don’t understand why you would think that a nursing home would be a better place to receive Communion in the hand than a normal parish. Serving at the NO Mass at home the only people who received Communion in the hand who dropped the Sacred Host were elderly - because their hands were shaking too much. They should have received on the tongue if only to avoid the Body of Our Lord getting mixed with mud on the floor.

Note cecilianus that I never made an argument that communion at a nursing home should be in the hand, only that by mouth was more difficult to do so w/ good hygiene… pay attention :tsktsk:

 

[holy_moly]

May I remind you that this whole thread began when the Archbishop of Bologna banned Communion in the hand - as several dioceses around the world have, including, among others, Rome! It’s not encouraged and never was; Rome also permitted the ordination of married men and eunuchs in the past, permitted bishops to fight in battle, and let the political leaders (such as Napoleon) nominate bishops - none of which were “okay” with them in the sense that they approved. They were indults granted to prevent greater evils, generally during periods of widespread laxity and weakness of the Church.

and may I remind you to look at what i bolded in the post that you responed to:thumbsup: