Communion givers must hate me

[Irishmom2]

I must have missed the part where Jesus gave the apostles His body on their tongue.

 

[Saxum]

Are people really going to disagree and argue with Jesus, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, over receiving the Eucharist?

I understand where you’re coming from. I held similar opinions until I researched the issue. Communion methods are small t traditions that can be changed; it’s not part of the Faith and isn’t under the protection of the Holy Spirit. The Church in her wisdom decided to restrict communion to on the tongue to protect Our Lord from desecration; the indult for communion in the hand is valid but it’s not something that is promoted by the Vatican.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I understand where you’re coming from. I held similar opinions until I researched the issue. Communion methods are small t traditions that can be changed; it’s not part of the Faith and isn’t under the protection of the Holy Spirit. The Church in her wisdom decided to restrict communion to on the tongue to protect Our Lord from desecration; the indult for communion in the hand is valid but it’s not something that is promoted by the Vatica

The Eucharist is not part of the Faith? The Eucharist is not under the protection, inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit?

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

Please read this
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

And finally, the Church, under inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit has changed the status quo as she sees fit. One example Communion by hand, restricted to tongue, then either or.
Another example , the development of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, the Mass itself.

 

[Saxum]

The Eucharist is not part of the Faith? The Eucharist is not under the protection, inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit?

The way the Eucharist is received is not a doctrine of the Faith. Please re-read my posts - specifically the part where I mentioned small ‘t’ traditions that can be changed. I’m not taking about the Eucharist: my posts are all about the way Our Lord is received. Furthermore, I’m writing in support of the default way to receive Holy Communion; I’m not denying that the Church has authority to allow communion in the hand - I’m simply explaining the reasons why I will never do it again.

I enjoyed reading your post but it really has no connection to what I have written in this thread.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I was born in 1988, I go to a “Novus Ordo” Mass. I’m not the only person that receives on the tongue. Some people do receive on the hand, probably most, but no one’s ever said to me “in the hand only”!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Show me where the vatican stipulates how the Eucharist is to be received please.

Where 'on the tongue ’ is the default way.

 

[Saxum]

And finally, the Church, under inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit has changed the status quo as she sees fit

The Church did not ‘change the status quo.’ The Church granted an indult to allow Communion in the hand and continues to retain communion on the tongue as the default.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The Church did not ‘change the status quo.’ The Church granted an indult to allow Communion in the hand and continues to retain communion on the tongue as the default.

Where was the original, where was the change, where was the current change

It’s fine to express what we like, feel most comfortable with etc,

But we can’t turn that into a claim about ‘default way’ given the default way was at the Last Supper with the Man himself, the Son of Man.

 

[Saxum]

Sure. Here’s a good article to read from Catholic Answers:

Can a Bishop Prohibit Receiving Communion on the Tongue?

The universal law of the Latin rite is that we receive Communion on the tongue. To receive in the hand is an indult or special permission that does not exist in...

www.catholic.com

Here’s a quotation that I feel is relevant to your questions:

The Vatican promotes Communion on the tongue not only for its long tradition but because it “expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist” and “removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species” (Memorial Domini 1277).

Here’s a short video clip from Michael Voris available on YouTube:

And here’s a short document from the Vatican website:

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

 

[Saxum]

I must have missed the part where Jesus gave the apostles His body on their tongue.

You certainly missed the part where the Church in her wisdom allowed the liturgy to develop organically. You also missed the part where Pius XII explained the process in Mediator Dei:

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

Pius XII acknowledged that the liturgy develops over time but he said that the integrity of her doctrine must always be safeguarded. Many people, myself included, believe that Communion in the hand has the potential in some cases and in some areas to lessen the respect shown to the Blessed Sacrament.

Pius XII also told us to beware of rejecting this organic development by returning to a primitive practice e.g. communion in the hand:

But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Later in the document, the Pope had this to say:

Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

Communion in the hand falls under this category. It is a rite of antiquity and the Church tried to stop its return. Having failed to stop the disobedience, the Church finally granted an indult to allow the practice. But note that St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome does not permit communion in the hand. This shows that the practice is permitted but not promoted.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I would like it in your own words thanks.

 

[Duesenberg]

It’s very wrong to even suggest one method is “better” than the other as this is a very divisive matter within the Church. Find out what’s allowed in your diocese, make your choice – what’s best for you personally, and stop worrying about what anyone else thinks. Done.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It seems just a matter of your opinion. Given the verbiage of your quotes of Pius Xii, it would seem just as likely to apply to receiving in the hand.

“…new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.”

You also quoted:

“The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.”

The argument that Jesus gave to the Apostles in the hand is your safeguard that practice does indeed preserve the integrity of the doctrine of the real presence.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Agreed. The church has spoken. That’s the end of it. It really dosn’t matter one iota if it was the “fruit of disobedience”…the church has declared it licit. That’s it. That’s all we need to know.

Receiving on the tongue is hard on me. I have very thick glasses and therefore a very far focal point. It’s very hard for me to judge a good distance. I have received at a communion rail and it didn’t help at all. I felt that I was going to headbutt the Priest in the hand.

To me, I am far less nervous and far more prepared in mind and spirit when I can receive in my hands.

 

[Saxum]

Then how do you explain what the Apostles did, or what the church did for centuries?

I’ve already answered this question: the liturgy organically developed i.e. banned communion in the hand to prevent these accidents.

As a EMHC trainer, I know that most dropped hosts are because of people not properly sticking out their tongues, or the host not sticking to it.

As a trainer of altar boys who serve the EF Mass, I know that most hosts are not dropped. Since 2007, I’ve seen it happen once. The priest stopped celebrating Mass and took a great deal of time to pick the host up and clean the floor. His reverence and increased my own.

But no, you would rather make an unsubstantiated claim and make others feel like they don’t fully believe in the Real Presence. Shame on you.

See the thread for the links I have provided. I have substantiated my opinions. Note that I do not make claims - I’m expressing my opinions and demonstrating why these opinions are sound.

And before you go about bashing me, I too receive on the tongue. But I will never make anyone feel like their personal choice is wrong, because it is not.

Kindly show me where I’ve bashed anyone or made them feel like their personal choice is wrong. If you do so, I’d the like the opportunity to apologise to that specific person.

From my vantage, I’ve simply expressed an opinion and I’ve explained why I hold this opinion. I recognise the existence of the indult, but I side with the traditional practice of reception on the tongue. The Vatican also sides with this traditional practice as is shown by the fact that communion in the hand was banned in St. Peters Basilica.

 

[Irishmom2]

Irishmom2:

I must have missed the part where Jesus gave the apostles His body on their tongue.

You certainly missed the part where the Church in her wisdom allowed the liturgy to develop organically.

No, I believe it is you that has missed that part. Apparently, the church is only allowed to develop organically when it is in the way you prefer. Either way is acceptable or it wouldn’t be allowed. Period. End of discussion.

You do not need to respond to my posts further, you will not convert me nor convince me, so save your words.

 

[Saxum]

It seems just a matter of your opinion. Given the verbiage of your quotes of Pius Xii, it would seem just as likely to apply to receiving in the hand.

This is untrue. This would be a false interpretation of the document since it’s very purpose was to prevent a return to ancient practices. Furthermore, as I’ve said repeatedly, Communion in the hand started as an act of disobedience.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Communion in the hand started as an act of disobedience.

It started at the last supper.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

This is untrue. This would be a false interpretation of the document since it’s very purpose was to prevent a return to ancient practices. Furthermore, as I’ve said repeatedly, Communion in the hand started as an act of disobedience.

And the church has been very firm on rebuffing any heresies or ill practices. The “gates of hell will not prevail” is not a nicety. The church has spoken that communion in the hand is entirely appropriate. Downplaying the fact the Church has spoken is degrading the fact that it is fully capable of making that decision.

 

[Saxum]

It started at the last supper.

See the writings of Pius XII on the organic development of the liturgy. Also, read the history of post-Vatican II development of Communion in the hand.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that I recognise the right of any Catholic to receive communion in the hand. It is licit and perfectly acceptable. I’m simply explaining my reasons for not availing myself of the exception granted by the indult. I prefer the traditional practice that is promoted by the Vatican: receiving on the tongue. I’ve provided evidence in support of my opinion.

I really didn’t know this was such a sensitive topic. I’ll know in the future not to open this can of worms. My goal was simply to provide information. I feel I’ve done this and I hope it’ll be useful to the OP.