Communion in the hand...END IT!

[michaeldaniels]

Matt, can you honestly say you have no problem whatsoever with someone who is not a practicing Catholic distributing Holy Communion?

Funny how we differ on the crisis. Oh well. Good night.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Fortunately the Gates of Hell have only over-run those who think they are better than Christ’s Church.

You mean those who think that the Church has errored in allowing Communion in the hand.

 

[michaeldaniels]

We must stop the canonization process right now for Mothe Teresa, because she was quoted as being adamently against CITH…and in the modern Church, there is no room for such rigid and traditional views.

You mean those who think that the Church has errored in allowing Communion in the hand.

 

[ProVobis]

You mean those who think that the Church has errored in allowing Communion in the hand.

If you read some of the stuff I posted above CAREFULLY, you would know it wasn’t really allowed where you think it’s allowed. Did Judas err? Did Judas have no followers? I rest my case.

 

[tweetymom]

Sorry…not going to work Tweety…yes we are all disciples, BUT WE ARE NOT ALL APOSTLES. Apostles=Bishops Disciples=laypeople

Do the math…now are you prepared to give up your position since it is unbiblical?

If thats what you choose to believe and you are not a disciple?

 

[ProVobis]

Might be worth watching again.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

 

[mystagogia]

I have really bad teeth. It’s a disaster, really, and quite embarrassing for me in a number of ways.

That’s why I like communion in the hand; it’s a relief.

It is one fraught with peril, however. Every time I receive the host in my hand I am thinking that it is too important of a charge for me to bear. What if I drop it, or screw it up?

The hand route is a double-edged relief.

So far I’ve been executing well on it, but really this is a problem. I’d much rather receive it in the mouth and just not worry. That would be best.

In one respect, I wish the whole hand/mouth issue would go away, and that the Church would pick one and stick with it. But, as long as we have the choice, I’ll take hand and hope for the best.

 

[Akini]

Receiving HIM on the tongue means nothing (any particle) is left out. Surely, mirco-particles of HIM will be left on the palm of hand when receiving HIM in the hand.

 

[adstrinity]

Is it any wonder that we have a crisis in The Catholic Church when there are people in positions of importance such as EMHC who are not even practicing Catholics???

If it makes you feel any better, I kinda think all EMHC are not the best practicing Catholics because they often aggrandize themselves to the delusion that they are needed and not extraordinary. They often do not dress appropriately and it’s a wonder what they believe.

I have really bad teeth. It’s a disaster, really, and quite embarrassing for me in a number of ways.

That’s why I like communion in the hand; it’s a relief.

It is one fraught with peril, however. Every time I receive the host in my hand I am thinking that it is too important of a charge for me to bear. What if I drop it, or screw it up?

The hand route is a double-edged relief.

So far I’ve been executing well on it, but really this is a problem. I’d much rather receive it in the mouth and just not worry. That would be best.

In one respect, I wish the whole hand/mouth issue would go away, and that the Church would pick one and stick with it. But, as long as we have the choice, I’ll take hand and hope for the best.

IF you would like, don’t be embarrassed and receive on the tongue. If you feel that they would judge you, pray for them because that’s on them.

Also, I think that all of us spectators are praying for all in this thread as there have been some uncharitable comments on all sides.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Yes, you make a VERY valid point – if it was good enough for our ancestors, why isn’t it good enough for us?

From the Last Supper on, Holy Communion was, as the norm, continually given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy after the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D. Proof of this can be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to “place your left hand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy Communion]” (apudL’Osservatore Romano. English edition of June 14, 1973, p. 6).

So you, indeed, ask a very good question. If communion in the hand was good enough for the original followers, why isn’t it good enough now?

You will note that I said for most of Western European history. I am not an Eastern European nor to my direct knowledge were any of my ancestors subjects within the Byzantine Empire. My ancestors were tribesmen north of the northern border of the Western Roman Empire in 348 AD preparing to sack the Roman Empire or in that lovely green isle in the far west which never saw the boots of Roman soldiers and whose descendants suffered outrageously for the Faith. History shows that receiving COTT was the norm for Western Europe (although I am quite certain that Bishop Basil will pull out some bit of minutea to the contrary). It is a relatively new indult practice that I can remember being used sometimes in the 80s? after the Communion rails were ripped out of so many of our churches which hardly encompasses the span of Western European history.

We know that our separated brethren in the various Orthodox denominations and our Eastern Catholic brothers do things differently from us. The rood screen is long gone from our churches but the iconostasis is still intact at least amongst the Orthodox. But, there is this old saying “When in Rome…”. I reiterate. CITH is a very new practice of a few decades. COTT is an ancient practice of the Western Church for centuries.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Receiving HIM on the tongue means nothing (any particle) is left out. Surely, mirco-particles of HIM will be left on the palm of hand when receiving HIM in the hand.

Bingo! No, I didn’t see any of those as an altar boy when people knelt and the paten was emptied into the chalice after Communion when the priest cleaned. it. Where are the patens today? Certainly not at my cathedral parish. Have we become so blase about receiving Our Lord that those particles of Him mean nothing? How could something as fundamental as making sure that particles of the Eucharist were not profaned in any way, shape, or form change so radically since I was trained as an altar boy?

As a cathedral chorister, how many times have I seen Father have to dash off the altar to stop a person from simply walking off with the host? (Answer: several). You pooh-pooh the idea of Satanists? Guess again.

 

[brotherhrolf]

OOPS! I was not implying that those who receive CITH are satanists just that there are Satanists who will try to get ahold of a consecrated host to profane it.

 

[spn82756]

Then we’ll have to write her bishop about her condescending attitude.

Be careful…ProVobis carries a lot of weight in this regard.

 

[spn82756]

Yes, you make a VERY valid point – if it was good enough for our ancestors, why isn’t it good enough for us?

From the Last Supper on, Holy Communion was, as the norm, continually given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy after the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D. Proof of this can be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to “place your left hand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy Communion]” (apudL’Osservatore Romano. English edition of June 14, 1973, p. 6).

So you, indeed, ask a very good question. If communion in the hand was good enough for the original followers, why isn’t it good enough now?

I guess one of the points is that an indult is okay if some of the posters think it is. If CITH is sacreligious or wrong then the pope can demand that it be stopped. Since he has only said that he prefers receiving on the tongue…and that receiving in the hand indult continues…it has to be okay. As a matter of fact it has to be fine with God. If it’s not…then all the popes that have allowed it are misleading the flock. We know what happens to people that mislead the flock. They sure can’t be canonized! And if the indult remains…or ever was…then it can’t ever be wrong! It can be rescinded…but it can’t ever be wrong. That would mean the popes have knowingly allowed sacrelige.

Bottom line…the past popes would all be in great error and risking the souls of their flock by allowing CITH if they KNEW it was wrong or worse yet…sacreligious. I receive on the tongue because I prefer to. It doesn’t make me any more respectful than someone receiving in the hand.

BTW…PV…do you ever attend the vigil of any Sunday or Holy Day. I think you might run into a problem with Traditional Catholics on that one. Now there’s a argument for you. They will tell you that you are not satisfying the Sunday obligation. BTW…they’ll tell you that you are not satisfying any obligation by attending a Novus Ordo Mass. ( or Novus Ordo Mess ) as some of them call it.

 

[michaeldaniels]

What on God’s green earth are you talking about? Do you and some of the posters on here actually believe the words that are coming out of your mouths? On one hand there is you, saying that people such as myself claim the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form is invalid and will not satisfy your Sunday obligation…on the other hand, there is a heretic who does not believe in Church teachings, but feels no shame or hypocrisy in being an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and feels everyone is equal to the Apostles in regards to authority…and all of if is completely asinine. I have never met ANYONE who believes the OF is invalid…everyone I know simply has a love and preference for the EF…this is simply an unsubstantiated lie. Furthermore, it appears I am the only one that has a problem with non-practicing Catholics serving on the Altar, much less as an EMHC…excuse my language but this is all a damn shame.

Like I stated earlier, with “Catholics” like this, there is no wonder we have a crisis in our Church…there needs to be some clear instruction and ultimatums from Rome…If you deny The Catholic faith, it is either time to accept it or pack up and move on. These people walk amongst us as wolves in sheeps clothing…Saint Pius X warned us about this happening…and the biggest shocker to me is the indifference of good Catholics that know right from wrong…not having a problem as they try to destroy and dismantle our Church from within.

Wake up folks…ROME IS BURNING

BTW…PV…do you ever attend the vigil of any Sunday or Holy Day. I think you might run into a problem with Traditional Catholics on that one. Now there’s a argument for you. They will tell you that you are not satisfying the Sunday obligation. BTW…they’ll tell you that you are not satisfying any obligation by attending a Novus Ordo Mass. ( or Novus Ordo Mess ) as some of them call it.

 

[Layman]

Yes, you make a VERY valid point – if it was good enough for our ancestors, why isn’t it good enough for us?

From the Last Supper on, Holy Communion was, as the norm, continually given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy after the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D. Proof of this can be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to “place your left hand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy Communion]” (apudL’Osservatore Romano. English edition of June 14, 1973, p. 6).

So you, indeed, ask a very good question. If communion in the hand was good enough for the original followers, why isn’t it good enough now?

There are doubts about the authenticity of that quote. It’s also a very slender thread on which to to hang such a drastic change to Roman Catholic practices.

Instead of saying* “Well, they did it in the very early days of the Church”,* one should instead ask** “Why was it forbidden for over 1500 years?”.**
**
There’s no value in CITH. **What benefit does it confer? None. What deficits does it have? Serious ones.

Mass has been turned into a pastiche.

Turn the priest around, let unvested lay people into a sanctuary which is no longer sacred (set apart) because they’ve removed the rails, let women hand out Communion, sing-alonga-pop-hymn, play down Hell and Damnation, move the tabernacle, have the congregation doing something all the time, dump Latin, change the ‘sacred’ texts and then …

… wonder why people don’t take it seriously any more.

We’re in the Matrix, people. Time to wake up.

 

[Sir_Knight]

We must stop the canonization process right now for Mothe Teresa, because she was quoted as being adamently against CITH…and in the modern Church, there is no room for such rigid and traditional views.

It was already shown that the quote was falsely attributed to her.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If you read some of the stuff I posted above CAREFULLY, you would know it wasn’t really allowed where you think it’s allowed. Did Judas err? Did Judas have no followers? I rest my case.

What does any of this have to do with Judas? Judas did not receive the Holy Spirit on the day of Penticost. The other Apostles did and Christ promised them that His Holy Spirit would guide His Church. Either Christ spoke the truth and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church AND allowing Communion in the Hand in certain instances or Christ lied to us. In which case, how can you believe ANY of His teachings and promises?

 

[Sir_Knight]

There are doubts about the authenticity of that quote. It’s also a very slender thread on which to to hang such a drastic change to Roman Catholic practices.

Instead of saying* “Well, they did it in the very early days of the Church”,* one should instead ask** “Why was it forbidden for over 1500 years?”.**
**
There’s no value in CITH. **What benefit does it confer? None. What deficits does it have? Serious ones.

Mass has been turned into a pastiche.

Turn the priest around, let unvested lay people into a sanctuary which is no longer sacred (set apart) because they’ve removed the rails, let women hand out Communion, sing-alonga-pop-hymn, play down Hell and Damnation, move the tabernacle, have the congregation doing something all the time, dump Latin, change the ‘sacred’ texts and then …

… wonder why people don’t take it seriously any more.

We’re in the Matrix, people. Time to wake up.

You are basicly saying that the gates of hell have overcome the Church since it is allowing all of these incorrect things and concluding that Jesus lied to us because He promised that the gates of Hell would NOT overcome His Church.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What on God’s green earth are you talking about? Do you and some of the posters on here actually believe the words that are coming out of your mouths? On one hand there is you, saying that people such as myself claim the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form is invalid and will not satisfy your Sunday obligation…on the other hand, there is a heretic who does not believe in Church teachings, but feels no shame or hypocrisy in being an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and feels everyone is equal to the Apostles in regards to authority…and all of if is completely asinine. I have never met ANYONE who believes the OF is invalid…everyone I know simply has a love and preference for the EF…this is simply an unsubstantiated lie. Furthermore, it appears I am the only one that has a problem with non-practicing Catholics serving on the Altar, much less as an EMHC…excuse my language but this is all a damn shame.

Like I stated earlier, with “Catholics” like this, there is no wonder we have a crisis in our Church…there needs to be some clear instruction and ultimatums from Rome…If you deny The Catholic faith, it is either time to accept it or pack up and move on. These people walk amongst us as wolves in sheeps clothing…Saint Pius X warned us about this happening…and the biggest shocker to me is the indifference of good Catholics that know right from wrong…not having a problem as they try to destroy and dismantle our Church from within.

Wake up folks…ROME IS BURNING

That’s right. Rome is burning. The gates of hell have overcome it and Christ lied to us because He said that would never happen to His Church.

The reason that there is a crisis in our Church is because “Catholics” question the decisions of the Pope and their Bishops. Were the Apostles’ decisions questioned by the people anywhere? No. Does the sheep question the shepard? No. Should we be questioning the decisions of our spiritual leaders who the bible commands us to obey? NO!