Communion givers must hate me

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nap66
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking as a “communion giver”, just be sure to open wide and stick your tongue far out. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about when giving communion. Oh, that and look at the host as I hold it and say “the body of Christ”. 😁
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Look, do what you want, but what you need to do is stop setting your opinions up as if they were correct and the Church is now wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m writing this with the utmost respect, but you’re seriously misconstruing my words. I am not now nor have I said the “Church is now wrong.”

I have REPEATEDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY written that communion in the hand is authorised and lawful.

This is my point: I witnessed the theft of a consecrated host. I then researched the liturgical norms. I found - to my surprise - that Rome DID NOT WANT communion in the hand. I verified this by actually reading the documents. Rome CAPITULATED and created an EXCEPTION to the law.

Here is my issue: THE EXCEPTION BECAME THE NORM and my nephew was refused communion on the tongue at his first communion.

MANY PEOPLE ON THIS THREAD HAVE READ MEANINGS INTO MY WORDS WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING WHAT I WROTE.

I’m not judging anybody. I SHARED INFORMATION I FOUND during my research. Nothing more and nothing less.

Onewoman: this post isn’t so much directed to you as to everybody else who have placed words in my mouth and misinterpreted my words.
 
Last edited:
I read what you wrote.
You wrote on the tongue is “better”.
It is not, and the Church has said so, repeatedly.

I am sorry about what happened to your nephew, it should not have happened. But to even suggest that Rome gave in to something is wrong. That is my point. You may not mean it the way it sounds, but the way your words come across is that Rome just caved in and let the disobedience slide. I hope that is not what you think.
 
Last edited:
JanetF said:
Speaking as a “communion giver”, just be sure to open wide and stick your tongue far out. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about when giving communion.
Click to expand...
Aw shucks! See I knew communion givers hate me! Tonguester that I am. What about handsters? What are the rules and do they fail at it too? I actually saw a man grab the host from the giver with his two fingers last week. I can only assume that is a no no as well?
 
Yes. That is a no no. If one is going receive on the hand, they should offer there hand, and have the host placed in it. Then they pick it up with their free hand and consume the host.

That said, I have had some of the same issues with those that receive in the hand as well. It is not the method of how one receives that is problematic, it is the the lack of catechesis that is the problem.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
It is not, and the Church has said so, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
This proves to me that you have not read what the Church has written on the matter. Pope Benedict XVI even tried to give good example by only giving communion on the tongue. Pope Paul VI strongly insisted that people receive on the tongue.

The truth is available to anybody who can google search or who has an Amazon account. Buy yourself Dominus Est.

Everybody, member or not, can read what I have written and the sources I’ve provided and make their own mind up.

Here’s the bottom line: Catholics received Communion on the tongue for centuries upon centuries. Then some Bishops decided they knew better and broke the liturgical laws. Rome tried to stop them but failed. Eventually, Rome issued an exception to the law. The result is that communion in the hand has become the norm in many places. As for myself, I’ll follow the traditional practice. I believe in the Real Presence and I don’t want to risk dropping Our Lord on the floor to be trodden underfoot. Who can disagree with this? Those who receive in the hand and don’t want to admit that the practice was born in disobedience and results in increased risk of desecration. That’s all I have to say on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
Everybody, member or not, can read what I have written and the sources I’ve provided and make their own mind up.

Here’s the bottom line: Catholics received Communion on the tongue for centuries upon centuries. Then some Bishops decided they knew better and broke the liturgical laws. Rome tried to stop them but failed. Eventually, Rome issued an exception to the law. The result is that communion in the hand has become the norm in many places. As for myself, I’ll follow the traditional practice. I believe in the Real Presence and I don’t want to risk dropping Our Lord on the floor to be trodden underfoot. Who can disagree with this? Those who receive in the hand and don’t want to admit that the practice was born in disobedience and results in increased risk of desecration. That’s all I have to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
I have been closely following this thread and I am highly impressed with your posts. You have politely but firmly made an excellent case for the venerable tradition of receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue. The sources you provided and the recommended readings are pertinent and anyone who reads them honestly will understand where you are coming from. Also, your summary of the advent of Communion in the hand in the above post is right on the mark. Please do not be discouraged by the negativity you’ve been subjected to in this thread by others who have clearly failed to read your posts or who are blatantly looking for a fight. Know that there are many who are reading your posts who are silent. These you have provided with a more informed view of this debate. May Our Lady keep you.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
But you are the one who keeps bringing up the disobedience factor and setting it up that the Church just gave in, even though it didn’t want to. Is that how you really want to paint the Magisterium to those who might not be Catholic, or to those who are struggling in their faith?
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the Magisterium. As Saxum has pointed out on many occasions it is a Church discipline - a “little t tradition”.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
What does it mean to flag a post?
Click to expand...
On this new forum thingy, people can “flag” posts they don’t like by hitting the three little “show more” dots at the bottom of the post. That brings up the Flag and Bookmark options. If you flag, you’re reporting the post for being objectionable. If enough people hit “flag” then the post gets hidden for a short amount of time so the person can withdraw or edit it, and then if not “fixed”, it vanishes into the ether.

The good side of this feature is, people can make obvious troll posts disappear without having to wait for a mod.

The bad side is, a bunch of people can make a post disappear if it’s actually adding to the discussion but they all disagree with its viewpoint.
 
It is the Magisterium – who decides and authorizes --which disciplines apply. This is what counts —The Magisterium has spoken-- communion in the hand is authorized/allowed. There should be no – “if/ands/or buts” after that.
 
Interesting that Saxum continues to say that he/she does not judge but says that COTT is “better”. Sounds like a judgement on those who prefer CITH to me.
 
Saxum admits that the practice of CITH is lawful, but continues to point out that, as he most recently posted, “The practice started as an abuse, continued in disobedience, and makes sacreligious acts possible.” He has made that point numerous times. Such continuing statements clearly are intended to cast a shadow over the practice of CITH while still acknowledging its legality – in other words, the judgment that CITH is a “shady” practice.

As far as “sacreligious acts,” I clearly remember the sisters I had in school in the '50’s - long before CITH - warning of people (“Masons” were especially cited) taking the Host out of their mouth to take somewhere and desecrate it.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The bad side is, a bunch of people can make a post disappear if it’s actually adding to the discussion but they all disagree with its viewpoint.
Click to expand...
All flags are reviewed by a moderator. If a user abuses the flagging system their trust level may be diminished, account may be temporarily suspended, or some other action may be taken.
 
Nap66 said:
Communion givers must hate me, because I am literally the only one in the Church that does not receive the host in my hand. I actually had a priest pause and look at my clasped hands like I forgot something as I stood there with my tongue out.
Click to expand...
Yes… it makes you the center of attention doesn’t it? Some people might put forth the argument that is your intention the whole time.
 
Last edited:
Where have you been going to Mass then? If you haven’t been going recently, I appreciate your contribution to our forum. But, your emoji is a clown and you present yourself as someone who hasn’t posted here before. Most of us here long to receive Our Lord on our very tongue - that is the proper way.

They should give you Communion. If they deny you that, then that’s a serious offence.
 
As a “communion giver” I’d like to note some things I experience that don’t seem to be talked about on these forums:
  • The individual who barely opens their mouth (possibly because they are ashamed of the condition of their teeth, have coated tongues or because they don’t want to lose their dentures.) These folks can be challenging!
  • The individual who seems to be asking for communion both in their hands and on their tongues.
  • The “nippers” who seem intent on nipping the ends of my fingers as I either lay the host on their tongues, or slide it in the narrow slot between their upper and lower teeth.
  • The individuals that jerk their heads just as I’m placing the hosts on their tongues, resulting in a wet thumb and forefinger. Thankfully I’m ambidextrous and can switch the ciborium to my now wet hand on the fly.
  • The gorgeous woman who stuck her tongue out in the most unnerving of ways.
  • The “lip stickers” who leave lipstick on the tip of my index finger. (Did you know that in most Orthodox churches, women remove their lipstick before presenting themselves for Holy Communion?)
  • Those that kneel before me and then cannot get up – and I’m unable to give them much help because I’m holding a ciborium.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top