Archbishop says Stop Communion in the Hand & Move the Tabernacle back

[Frank_Roman]

My priest taught me something. He place a non consecrated host on my hand and told me to reverently eat it like I was recieving. Then he said FREEZE.

Look at your hands.

There were about 3 specks of Our Lord on my hand which unless angels intervened would have been dropped on the floor and trampled over.

 

[MikeWM]

Frank Roman:

My priest taught me something. He place a non consecrated host on my hand and told me to reverently eat it like I was recieving. Then he said FREEZE.

Look at your hands.

There were about 3 specks of Our Lord on my hand which unless angels intervened would have been dropped on the floor and trampled over.

Your Church evidently needs to buy better hosts that don’t crumble.

Mike

 

[Scotty_PGH]

MikeWM:

Your Church evidently needs to buy better hosts that don’t crumble.

Mike

Or you N.O. folks could all just go back to receiving on your tongues, straight from the priest’s consecrated hands. Worked fine for about 1,500 years or more.

 

[fix]

cyprian:

It’s true, what you say, and obedience to our Church is important. The fact that they recieved on the hand in the first centuries in some places does not necessarily mean it’s the prudent thing to do now. There are many Cath’s that don’t understand the reverance due to Jesus in this sacrament. As an outward sign, it seems to me that recieving on the tongue is a way of producing a certain disposition in people that look at this holy food as a snack between meals. There are other issues, like at my parish the priest doesn’t “show” the consecrated host during the Agnus Dei.
I don’t know what the value is of a survey that says that the majority of Catholics don’t believe (understand?) in the real presence, and I don’t think recieving on the hand is the cause of this disbelief, but it does seem that a corrective action(recieving on the tongue) toward an already existing misunderstanding, or lack uf understanding would not be a bad thing. But that’s what I think, and who am I? Nothing… He is All

Peace and Love

Such wonderful logic. The problem is many do not prefer this reasoning over their own “feelings” and self will.

 

[MikeWM]

Scotty PGH:

Or you N.O. folks could all just go back to receiving on your tongues, straight from the priest’s consecrated hands. Worked fine for about 1,500 years or more.

‘You N.O. folks’? You mean Catholics attending the normative mass of the Catholic Church?

Mike

 

[SaintJVMan]

FuzzyBunny116:

Why?

When you receive the host (regardless of whether you chose to receive on the hand or in the usual way) from Joe Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, your receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord from the hands of Joe Doe Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, granted obviously this isn’t a bad thing since you still receive our Lord.

However when you receive from the consecrated hands of your priest, your not receiving just from Father so and so but from the hands of Christ.

Both are good but its clear that the latter is better then the former.

 

[Benediction]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

But to those of us who have been immersed in moderism, it is pretty refreshing.
Yep, it’s an opinion, but so is the opinion of the modernists that have changed our church.

Such name-calling only further marginalizes those who refer to themselves as “traditionalists.” The enemy is within.

 

[Benediction]

Frank Roman:

My priest taught me something. He place a non consecrated host on my hand and told me to reverently eat it like I was recieving. Then he said FREEZE.

Look at your hands.

There were about 3 specks of Our Lord on my hand which unless angels intervened would have been dropped on the floor and trampled over.

What sort of hosts are you using? Homemade ones that have more than wheat flour and water as its ingredients?

I look at my plam every time I receive communion in hand. Perhaps 1-2 times/year (I attend Mass 3x/wk) a tiny crumb or two is left in my palm. When that happens I simply consume the crumbs.

It dosen’t take “angels.” All it takes is a bit of dilligence, and perhaps more suitable hosts.

These sort of questionable claims will damage your credibility and those of other “traditionalists.”

 

[Benediction]

SaintJVMan:

When you receive the host (regardless of whether you chose to receive on the hand or in the usual way) from Joe Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, your receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord from the hands of Joe Doe Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, granted obviously this isn’t a bad thing since you still receive our Lord.

However when you receive from the consecrated hands of your priest, your not receiving just from Father so and so but from the hands of Christ.

Both are good but its clear that the latter is better then the former.

Where does the Church suggest this? Hint: She dosen’t. The sort of man-made tradition/belief you are suggesting does nothing but weaken your position.

 

[netmilsmom]

Benediction:

Such name-calling only further marginalizes those who refer to themselves as “traditionalists.” The enemy is within.

It’s not name calling but rather as a classification.
I am proud to be a traditionalist.
Don’t you think that it’s better to say traditional as opposed to orthodox?
It makes those who like the modern liturgy “unorthodox”. That’s not polite in my mind.

 

[legeorge]

Benediction:

Where does the Church suggest this? Hint: She dosen’t. The sort of man-made tradition/belief you are suggesting does nothing but weaken your position.

I believe SaintJVMAn was referring to the priest acting “in persona Christi”. Hint: This is a teaching of the Church. Not something he “made up”. Read the Catechism 1548. It includes this:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents.

So, through the benefit of Holy Orders, the priest is Christ for us, offering us the Body and Blood just like the Last Supper.

Your condescending attitude does nothing but weaken your position. I see you just joined on the 6th. Could it be that you were called on this attitude before and signed up under a new name to continue to badger people on these forums instead of trying to have conversations like a reasonable and charitable contributor?

 

[SummaTheo]

This is my problem with EMHO and communion in the hand. Do not think that I look less on anyone who recevies communion in the hand…When we receive from the priest(sharer in Christ’s priesthood and also a represenative of Christ), it is the Church feeding us. We don’t feed ourselves salvation, but it is through the Church (Christ’s body) that we are saved. (Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood you have no life within you.) That is why I refrain from communion in the hand and also because I do not want to contaminate Christ with my dirty hands that have been all over the pews and that have been coughed on etc. This is just my opinion.

 

[Orogeny]

SaintJVMan:

When you receive the host (regardless of whether you chose to receive on the hand or in the usual way) from Joe Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, your receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord from the hands of Joe Doe Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, granted obviously this isn’t a bad thing since you still receive our Lord.

However when you receive from the consecrated hands of your priest, your not receiving just from Father so and so but from the hands of Christ.

Both are good but its clear that the latter is better then the former.

How can you get any better than receiving the Lord? That almost sounds like asking which is larger, infinitity or infinity + 1. You can’t get a number larger than infinity and you can’t get better than receiving the Lord.

Peace

Tim

 

[Polvskoy]

Actually, to tell you the truth in Kazakhstan they are actually building churches while in America and Western Europe they are destroying them. Also it wasn’t only Abp.Lenga who said this.
Here are some other bishops’ replies:

BISHOP EDWARD OZOROWSKI, AUXILIARY OF BIALYSTOK, POLAND. “The Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, brings the sacrifice of the cross into the present day. The sacrifice is the ‘primum principium’ of the Eucharist and creates a hierarchy of all the truths related thereto. … Eucharistic teaching underlines many important themes: banquet, communion, listening to the word of God, sacrament, etc., however these themes lack a ‘keystone.’ One consequence of this is a certain ‘protestantization’ of the theology of the Eucharist, which such teaching reveals as being a beautiful rite, but one with little meaning for life. Yet it is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, to which man has access through the Eucharist, that is most important in this mystery. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross brought salvation to humanity. … Thanks to the Eucharist, sacrifice in human life is transformed into the sacrifice of Christ. Only by walking the path of the cross can we reach the glory of the resurrection.”

ARCHBISHOP ANTHONY SABLAN APURON O.F.M. Cap., OF AGANA, GUAM. “In the Pacific, the scarcity of priests and the aggressiveness of the evangelistic sects are challenging the very survival of the Catholic faith. In my experience, the only answer to this double predicament is to ‘form communities based on faith,’ as Pope Benedict told the youth in Cologne. … Today, the Church needs to make clearly visible the signs of the Eucharist: maybe the Church needs to restore the ‘breadness’ of the bread which becomes the Body of Christ to be eaten by all, and wine drunk by all which becomes the Blood of Christ. These signs fully and powerfully represent the reality that they signify and not just approximate them. … I urge leaders of the Church today, to do everything possible to help people come to really know Jesus Christ through the signs of the Eucharist and the reality they signify.”

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

Kielbasi:

No it doesn’t.

The Magesterium has approved of communion in the hand, and some feel that it is a more ancient and time honoured method of receiving communion.

Individual bishops, like those in Kazakhstan, can certainly refuse this indult if they like.

But it doesn’t change the fact that communion in the hand is equally copasetic as to receiving on the tongue.

I believe that you can never been too sacred when dealing with the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord.

I used to receive in the hand, but one day I had to wipe my runny nose prior to receiving Holy Communion and thought UGH!!! (Sorry about the Lord!)

I now only receive on the tongue and try NOT to receive Communion from a lay person.

I have also resigned from distributing Communion during Mass (I am an appointed ExtraOrdinary Minister of Holy Communion) but I will take Holy Communion to the home bound if asked because the Priests are stretched. (I have not been asked to date.)

If more people only received Holy Communion from somone who’s graduated from the Seminary, then there would be no call to have ExtraOrdinary Ministers of Holy Communion. What’s the rush?? Let’s spend another 15 mins. with the Lord. Have we not the extra time to spend with HIM?

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[otm]

SummaTheo:

This is my problem with EMHO and communion in the hand. Do not think that I look less on anyone who recevies communion in the hand…When we receive from the priest(sharer in Christ’s priesthood and also a represenative of Christ), it is the Church feeding us. We don’t feed ourselves salvation, but it is through the Church (Christ’s body) that we are saved. (Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood you have no life within you.) That is why I refrain from communion in the hand and also because I do not want to contaminate Christ with my dirty hands that have been all over the pews and that have been coughed on etc. This is just my opinion.

Contaminate Christ? You have more bacteria in your mouth than you do on your hand.

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

otm:

Contaminate Christ? You have more bacteria in your mouth than you do on your hand.

I think it’s not a question of contamation as it is one of respect.

In addition, when you accept Holy Communion by the hand you TAKE it – when you open your mouth to accept the Lord, then you truly RECEIVE HIM.

I don’t think you can ever show enough reverence. I wish we could kneel again at the altar!
Blessings,
Joanie

 

[netmilsmom]

otm:

Contaminate Christ? You have more bacteria in your mouth than you do on your hand.

The cooties in my mouth are Holy Cooties.

(oh geez, I’m gonna burn for this, sorry)

 

[cyprian]

If God is outside of time as we know it, and the sacrifice reaches it’s summit for us at communion, as Heaven and earth are joined so to speak, why do we (Holy Mother Church) legislate God’s particular signal time with us (this is My Body, this is My Blood here and now, forever) and remain in this hurried manner of our own time when recieving Him. EMHC’S are only to be used when absolutely necessary, yet it seems we have created inflated ego’s (wanting). In doing so we have created an ancillary hurriedness that has actually become a reason to have more and more EMHC’S. Is this why we no longer kneel to recieve (although we’re allowed to), why we have to stand after recieving (although we’re allowed to kneel). What’s the rush???
Finding it impossible to reverently, thankfully pray after recieving while standing I wait until after Father sits down, only to be summoned to stand within 30 seconds of his sitting down. What is the rush??? Why do we use (substitute) our time for God’s time? We are allowed to kneel to receive, yet told we should stand,we can use EMHC’S or choose not to, told we can kneel after recieving yet told we should stand, allwed to receive on the tongue and also in the hand. In all 4 of these situation’s the one would have things move slower toward more reverance and the other to expediency. Why do we have ushers (expediters) waving us over to EMHC’S that no one really wants to recieve from?? What’s another 5 minutes??

Peace and Love our Church

 

[KCT]

cyprian:

There are many Cath’s that don’t understand the reverance due to Jesus in this sacrament. As an outward sign, it seems to me that recieving on the tongue is a way of producing a certain disposition in people that look at this holy food as a snack between meals.

We need better catechesis. Telling everyone how to receive will not automatically make them understand what the Eucharist really is.

—KCT