Communion in Hand at the Last Supper?

[Ockham]

It’s sad how the CITH crowd demands obedience yet it was the very opposite tactics as to how it got into the GIRM.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It’s sad how the CITH crowd demands obedience yet it was the very opposite tactics as to how it got into the GIRM.

This member of the CITH crowd was obedient about COTT until the church came up with the current options. Now I’m still obedient, receiving either way. It is very simple.

Alan

 

[tee_eff_em]

So you’re saying the end justifies the means, or only in this case? It seems as if somewhere along the line, people took unnecessary risks to their souls in order to push their agenda. The Vatican could have easily excommunicated the abusers and had there not been the widespread acceptance of the abuse, they probably would have at least been reprimanded.

I think what he is saying is: The end is just.

:twocents:
tee

 

[PJM]

=MarkThompson;6739607]I agree, it’s not “more Catholic” either way, though that doesn’t have much to do with whether the term “take” or “receive” is better, or with whether one term describes Communion in the hand and the other Communion on the tongue, as you proposed.

And I have to disagree that "t’s not about us’ it’s about God" – it’s about both us and God, specifically about how we reverence him and how we stand before him. Communion, like redemption, is an act of relationship, that can only be contemplated in the context of a relationship, and no relationship can be understood without reference to both parties.

And thanks for your permission to do as I want. I’ll just go ahead and continue receiving on the tongue, then.

For the sake of discussion friend,

The 2008 PEW report shares that the number of self professed Catholics that go to Confession even once ayear is about 10%.

As nearly 100% of Mass attendees go to Communion an most of them receive in there un consecrated hands… what’s wrong with this picture?

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, **but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.** Jesus said to them **again, “Peace be with you. **As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” **And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

And where in the Bible friend does it say we are on a par with God?

YOU REALLY believe that we ought to be holding GOD IN OUR HANDS?

No wonder we are in the mess we are in.

Matt.17: 1-6 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli’jah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Eli’jah.” He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe.

And these are Apostles!

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Sirach2]

Ockham:

Clearly rules are not respected by the CITH hoard. It was ruled against by Pope Paul VI. It was only granted an indult status due to risk of schism. It was allowed with conditions the U.S. didn’t qualifty for. The Church has never taught CITH. Why do you and the other CITH soldiers ignore the facts?

Whoa, fella … I remember the indult status granted for around 40 years to the TLM “hoard.” At that time, there was a fear of another schism such as LeFebvre’s, so to stop the whining of those who would not accept the new rite, permission was granted for an indult, fearing that these Catholics might leave the faith. True, the indult finally became permanent, but it took around 40-plus years, 2007.

Saying that CITH is only an indult in the US not true, for it is granted in other countries as well. Do your homework, please.

Just a quick point to address the nonsense I read about crumbs from the sacred host. In all my days and years, and they are MANY, of receiving the host, there has NEVER been so much as a speck that splintered loose. The hosts are made by the nuns in my area and are most solid without a shred of danger. Some of you have become overly scrupulous and use this as rationale to throw rocks at those who receive in the hand. During lent last year, I decided to abase myself and receive on the tongue, and to my horror, the EMHC almost missed my mouth and dropped it. The experience was so disruptive of prayerful recollection that I never did it again. My hand was a more certain recepticle for safety than the alternative.

It appalls me that on this holy day of the Lord, there are people who spend it castigating other members of Christ’s Body! Not that on Monday one can return to “business as usual,” but one might expect a little more respect and prayerfulness in God’s honor today. He must be really pleased.

 

[Ockham]

This member of the CITH crowd was obedient about COTT** until the church came up with the current options**. Now I’m still obedient, receiving either way. It is very simple.

Alan

The Church didn’t come up with the current options. Please do some research and understand how CITH got into the GIRM. The indult was issued before CITH was practiced in the USA so you didn’t qualify. The practice itself was ruled against by the pope. If you have time to chat here you have time to Google the subject.

 

[Ockham]

True, the indult finally became permanent, but it took around 40-plus years, 2007.

How is the indult permanent? It may be the norm but it is still legally an exception to the rule (COTT)

Saying that CITH is only an indult in the US not true, for it is granted in other countries as well. Do your homework, please.

I never said the indult was issued for only the USA. Do better reading comprehension please. Actually at the time the USA didn’t qualify for the indult conditions.

Just a quick point to address the nonsense I read about crumbs from the sacred host.

The Body of Christ is ‘nonsense’? Do you believe in transubstantiation? The Church teaches that every particle is Christ.

He must be really pleased.

I wonder how He feels about the Blessed Sacrament diminishing in reverence and belief these past forty years?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Church didn’t come up with the current options. Please do some research and understand how CITH got into the GIRM. The indult was issued before CITH was practiced in the USA so you didn’t qualify. The practice itself was ruled against by the pope. If you have time to chat here you have time to Google the subject.

OK, I’ll ask my pastor if it is allowed in our church. Somehow I have a feeling I know what the answer is going to be. If my pastor is against the pope and thereby leads me to hell, then God help him.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

So you’re saying the end justifies the means, or only in this case?

I said no such thing. Whatever the causation was–and I don’t necessarily buy into the revisionist history oft-repeated here–the Church made the decision to make the option available. I suspect that it was at least partly because the predictions of horrible consequences just didn’t pan out where it was being done before approval, assuming there wasn’t actually internal approval which none of us would be aware of.

In the end though the Church is the authority for what is and is not acceptable. Once approved, NOBODY has the right to be criticizing any fellow Catholic for which way they choose.

I’m sad to see, though not unexpected, that the acrimony and judgment goes on unabated.

 

[Ockham]

OK, I’ll ask my pastor if it is allowed in our church. Somehow I have a feeling I know what the answer is going to be. If my pastor is against the pope and thereby leads me to hell, then God help him.

Alan

You have been presented with the facts. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Judge yourself accordingly.

 

[Sirach2]

Ockham:

Sirach2:

True, the indult finally became permanent, but it took around 40-plus years, 2007.

How is the indult permanent? It may be the norm but it is still legally an exception to the rule (COTT)

To use your expression, “Do better reading comprehension please.” The indult I was referring to was the TLM until SP was issued in 2007. It was an indult for over 40 years, since the missal of 1962.

The Body of Christ is ‘nonsense’? Do you believe in transubstantiation? The Church teaches that every particle is Christ.

Again, “Do better reading comprehension please.” I never said the Body of Christ is nonsense, and you know it. But that’s called dirty tricks in twisting others’ words.
I have no desire to explain myself if you have little abiility to understand words in front of you.

With ncjohn, I wipe my feet, as well…

 

[Ockham]

To use your expression, “Do better reading comprehension please.” The indult I was referring to was the TLM until SP was issued in 2007. It was an indult for over 40 years, since the missal of 1962.

The TLM was the only form of Latin Rite liturgy for approximately 1,500 years. Can you show me the document from V2 making it indult status?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You have been presented with the facts. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Judge yourself accordingly.

I’m sorry but God told me not to judge.

I totally defer my judgment to Jesus.

Lord, I ask through Your Son Jesus Christ that you grant me a kind and understanding heart and mind, and that you give me guidance on this issue – both in how to receive, and in how to proceed in these discussions. As for now, I am ready for you to judge my efforts so far. Are you happy with what I am doing, Lord? If I need testing or chastisement, I’m ready. I ask to open myself so that Your Spirit may guide me even now as I decide whether to post this prayer. Amen.

Alan

 

[DebatingDebator]

@Sirach2

Yes there are many places that manufacture the Communion Host’s that are designed to crumb as little as possible. However Being thorough as I am - and having seen such “so-called” perfectly safe bread, it does crumb and crumbs often - just a little less than in the olden days.

It may be that I have very good eyesight and perhaps you do not (speculating here) but my eyesight is good enough to see crumbs from the so-called infrangible altar bread. So therefore your view on the matter is certainly innacurate.

It is not nonsense about crumbs, each crumb of consecrated bread is Our Lord and for lack of a better way of putting it - We owe him our allegiance.

@ncjohn

The question I asked is not irrelevant. Unfortunately we are living in a time where almost nobody who receives in the Hand actually checks their fingers. There is nothing subjective about it. It is a simple fact that the majority of people who take CITH do not know anything about the crumbs of the Blessed Sacrament needing to be consumed.

I have traveled a lot and talked to a lot of people and I have never heard of a single Parish where CITH is given where the majority do not check their hands.

I know that you think it is subjective but its not. The Blessed Sacrament is being lost with such a frequency these days that it is actually frightening and scary.

If you want to talk to me in an organized way in private about these things I will. I would give up sleep to communicate what I know about this subject to you.

DebatingDebator

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If you want to talk to me in an organized way in private about these things I will. I would give up sleep to communicate what I know about this subject to you.

Interesting idea. I have a forum we can use; I’d be willing to dedicate a whole section to this debate, so we can organize it however we want, and the discussion will be friendly. Another idea is to check out the groups on CA; I don’t know how they work but maybe it would be a good place for this, too.

Let me know by PM if you want me to set something up, either here or at my website. I think it would be fun to lay it all out. We may not conclude anything but I’m looking forward to some spirited discussions and great fellowship.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

I’m sorry but God told me not to judge.

I totally defer my judgment to Jesus.

Jesus told us the path to heaven would be narrow. Our Lady told us many people with good intentions will end up in Hell. There is good and evil, night and day, right and wrong. CITH got into the GIRM through disobedience and to this day is still merely an exception. God gives us free will. Eve ate the apple. Judge yourself accordingly.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Jesus told us the path to heaven would be narrow. Our Lady told us many people with good intentions will end up in Hell. There is good and evil, night and day, right and wrong. CITH got into the GIRM through disobedience and to this day is still merely an exception. God gives us free will. Eve ate the apple. Judge yourself accordingly.

You don’t seem to be getting my drift.

I have heard your arguments as to why you prefer COTT. I’m neither disputing nor endorsing any of the facts you’ve presented.

Just for a moment, let’s say I agreed with you that CITH is just plain wrong, and that the Church is somehow deceived or pressured into allowing it.

The next question is what position do I take on other people who lawfully engage in CITH? I suppose I would go for the leaders, because if I go after the sheep and tell them their leaders are leading them astray, will that help the flock, or will it scatter them? I can explain to them why I think we should all use COTT, but when they lawfully choose not to, I may not judge them.

When you say, “judge yourself accordingly” and then repeat it even after I told you I leave all judgments of myself up to God, then in essence you have judged me. I don’t have a problem with that, as long as you don’t. I get judged by people all the time, and it doesn’t hurt my relationship with God a bit.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

You don’t seem to be getting my drift.

I have heard your arguments as to why you prefer COTT. I’m neither disputing nor endorsing any of the facts you’ve presented.

It’s not me that prefers COTT - it is the Church!

If you are neither disputing or endorsing then you are ignoring.

CITH was granted after blackmail of schism. It was ruled against by Pope Paul VI and every other pope who took a position on the issue.

If you care about your fellow Catholics you’ll work to end this scornful practice. Research it. Pass along the history. Judge yourself accordingly.

 

[ProVobis]

Just a quick point to address the nonsense I read about crumbs from the sacred host. In all my days and years, and they are MANY, of receiving the host, there has NEVER been so much as a speck that splintered loose. The hosts are made by the nuns in my area and are most solid without a shred of danger. Some of you have become overly scrupulous and use this as rationale to throw rocks at those who receive in the hand.

Then you must have selective eyes because coin dealers would disagree with you most vehemently. Apparently you’ve never heard of rare uncirculated coins whose value dropped when someone picked them up?. They can spot rubs very easily and can even tell you approximately how many people handled each coin you have in your pocket.

And isn’t the Body of Christ worth more than the rarest of coins?

 

[ProVobis]

How many can honestly say all these conditions of everyone receiving CITH are met in their parishes?

Conditions in the indult:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way [such as overpromotion of CITH?] that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord [such as heavy forum debate?] between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well **any danger or hint of danger [where isn’t there danger?] **of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. **Whatever procedure is adopted, care [such as paten?] **must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.