P
PrayforMallory
Guest
On a side note, what is the issue with communion on the tongue only? Seems like people wouldn’t care too much about going back to it. Is it really a big deal if they abolish communion in the hand?
- Status
S
Spiller
Guest
There are more than one…
I think maybe some people are embarrassed to receive on their tongues based on the condition of their teeth and/or tongues.
I think some elderly priests appreciate the options because their 80+ year old hands are not as steady as they were when they first came out of the seminary.
The words of the Bible and the Sacramentary seem to better describe CIH and not on one’s tongue and people are aware of this.
Many would wonder why we had the choice and why the choice was then taken away.
Probably a far smaller number equate CIH to the practice of the early church and want to emulate that.
Sadly, some would see the only a “step backwards” if the choice were taken away.
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Ok, I guess it’s time for a review on the benefits on why the option of receiving in the hand is permitted
1.) Our entire body, including hand as well as tongue, shares equally in the goodness of God’s creation and in the holiness achieved through Christ’s entrance into the world as the Word made flesh (see Gn 2:31; Jn 1:14-16
2.) It reminds us that through the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist) we have become temples of the living God (see 2 Cor 6:16), a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (see 1 Pt 2:9). We are cleansed and consecrated, rendered sharers in Christ’s priesthood, and made a new creation.
3.) It forms a positive, human, understandable response to Jesus invitation to "take and eat."We actually reach out, receive the Lord’s Body into our hands, and then communicate ourselves.
4.) It appears to be more mature and adult gesture. In our culture, normally only infants and the infirm receive food into their mouths from another’s hand.
5.) It is more relaxed and hygenic method of distributing Communion.
6.) It links together the presentation of the gifts and the reception of the Lord. The same hands that brought forward and offered the bread and wine earlier in the Mass now receive back these transformed gifts.
Resource: Dictionary of the Liturgy
Catholic Book Publishing Co.-1989
Rev. Jovian P. Lang,OFM
1.) Our entire body, including hand as well as tongue, shares equally in the goodness of God’s creation and in the holiness achieved through Christ’s entrance into the world as the Word made flesh (see Gn 2:31; Jn 1:14-16
2.) It reminds us that through the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist) we have become temples of the living God (see 2 Cor 6:16), a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (see 1 Pt 2:9). We are cleansed and consecrated, rendered sharers in Christ’s priesthood, and made a new creation.
3.) It forms a positive, human, understandable response to Jesus invitation to "take and eat."We actually reach out, receive the Lord’s Body into our hands, and then communicate ourselves.
4.) It appears to be more mature and adult gesture. In our culture, normally only infants and the infirm receive food into their mouths from another’s hand.
5.) It is more relaxed and hygenic method of distributing Communion.
6.) It links together the presentation of the gifts and the reception of the Lord. The same hands that brought forward and offered the bread and wine earlier in the Mass now receive back these transformed gifts.
Resource: Dictionary of the Liturgy
Catholic Book Publishing Co.-1989
Rev. Jovian P. Lang,OFM
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, no it doesn’t. The Apostles were all bishops whom He is charging to celebrate the Eucharist. Bishops and priests, as celebrants, take the Host of the Paten and from the Chalice and consume it by right of office.
The rest of us RECIEVE the Eucharist.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Pope John Paul II (1978)… "To touch the scared species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.(1978, Dominicae Cenae, sec.II)Ok, I guess it’s time for a review on the benefits on why the option of receiving in the hand is permitted
1.) Our entire body, including hand as well as tongue, shares equally in the goodness of God’s creation and in the holiness achieved through Christ’s entrance into the world as the Word made flesh (see Gn 2:31; Jn 1:14-16
2.) It reminds us that through the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist) we have become temples of the living God (see 2 Cor 6:16), a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (see 1 Pt 2:9). We are cleansed and consecrated, rendered sharers in Christ’s priesthood, and made a new creation.
3.) It forms a positive, human, understandable response to Jesus invitation to "take and eat."We actually reach out, receive the Lord’s Body into our hands, and then communicate ourselves.
4.) It appears to be more mature and adult gesture. In our culture, normally only infants and the infirm receive food into their mouths from another’s hand.
5.) It is more relaxed and hygenic method of distributing Communion.
6.) It links together the presentation of the gifts and the reception of the Lord. The same hands that brought forward and offered the bread and wine earlier in the Mass now receive back these transformed gifts.
Resource: Dictionary of the Liturgy
Catholic Book Publishing Co.-1989
Rev. Jovian P. Lang,OFM
Paul VI: “This method (on the tongue) must be retained” … (1969, Memoriale Domini).
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565): “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
B
Brenda_V
Guest
I won’t dispute what your former Priest says, his memory on this is going to be far better than mine because we always sat in one of the first pews so I didn’t see who “didn’t go” and who “did go” and I wasn’t responsible for taking the count.
This could indeed change the amount of time it could take for Communion but more because of the number of people who stayed at the rail longer praying instead of going back to their pew to do their prayers of thanksgiving (something I was taught to do with my First Communion prior to Vat. 2 so that someone else could take my place at the Communion Rail).
Brenda V.
B
Brendan
Guest
Our parish still uses the Communion Rail ( OF Mass)
Our priest, the senior priest in residence, and our Deacon are the only MHC’s and they will offer Communion to about 700 - 1,000.
Between the 3, they do it faster than our old parish did the same, using 8 EMHC’s to do so.
( the two priests will offer at the Communion Rail, and the Deacon will bring the Eucharist to the elderly in the pews.)
N
NPC
Guest
Just as one has the right to receive Communion into one’s hand, so have they equally the right to receive on the tongue. Personally I would rather see everyone choosing the latter method. I think that if there is any danger of Christ falling to the floor - even the most minute particle of the host - this danger must be omitted, insofar as this is possible. The fact is that the more people who receive in the hand, the likelihood of particles being lost is increased. It is only in the last seven months that I have begun receiving Communion onto my tongue - I told the reason why in another similar discussion, but maybe it’s worth mentioning again: It was All-Saints Day last year, and that morning I went to Mass. At Communion-time I went and knelt at the altar rail, and then received the Body of Christ into my hands. Having consumed the Lord, I went back to my pew, and as I knelt to pray, I noticed that there was at least one tiny particle of the host on my hand. I ate this piece too, but I was greatly troubled by the thought that had I not noticed that little piece, I would have carelessly let Christ fall to the floor to be trampled upon. Moreover, I was troubled by the thought that this could have happend every single time I received my First Holy Communion 17 years ago. From that day, I have felt it best to receive Communion directly onto my tongue.
O
OldRedleg
Guest
Someone was looking for the statement by an early Church Father reference receiving communion in the hand.
It was St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in his Mystagogical Catechesis V who wrote:
“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”
On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: *“Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?” *Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood?
What is at issue is reverence to the real prescense. Not whether you receive in the hand or on the tounge.
Just because you receive on the tounge doesn’t necessarily mean you’re more holy or respectful of Christ than those who receive in the hand.
Pro-abortion and Protestant President Bill Clinton received the Holy Eucharist at Queen of the World Roman Catholic Church in Johannesburg, South Africa on March 29, 1998.
It was St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in his Mystagogical Catechesis V who wrote:
“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”
On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: *“Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?” *Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood?
What is at issue is reverence to the real prescense. Not whether you receive in the hand or on the tounge.
Just because you receive on the tounge doesn’t necessarily mean you’re more holy or respectful of Christ than those who receive in the hand.
Pro-abortion and Protestant President Bill Clinton received the Holy Eucharist at Queen of the World Roman Catholic Church in Johannesburg, South Africa on March 29, 1998.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
We used to sing that hymn, O Lord I Am Not Worthy." Now we have a Eucharistic prayer where we thank the Lord for making us worthy to stand in his presence. I guess times and fashions change even in the Church.
What seems more reverent to you may not seem more reverent to some others. You are free in any Catholic Church in the U.S. that I know of to receive on the tongue. What others prefer is not your problem.
I don’t know which Church you are going to or what form of the Mass, but the sacrifice is mentioned in the prayers of every Mass I can recall participating in. It isn’t blasted from the pulpit in every homily but it is taught in RCIA.
I don’t know for sure how I would react if Jesus in all his heavenly glory was made manifest in my presence. I usually hug those I love. I do know that Peter, James, and John did not seem so much in awe at the transfiguration that they were overwhelmed. Old Peter thought it would be nice to put up a few tents and hang out there for a while.
When the crumb is small enough that it is no longer identifiable as having the accidents of bread, unless I am mistaken, it is said he leaves that micro particle. Don’t be discouraged because some don’t absolutely agree with you. Within limits there is a lot of room in the tent. Didn’t the Republicans say that?
S
SIA
Guest
So, the heck with what the Early Church did and what Jesus did, we will just blindly follow the Catholic church, right or wrong, doesn’t matter.
B
bella_mama
Guest
While it’s probably not dropping “all over the floor”, the Blessed Sacrament did drop out of my hand on the way to my mouth several months ago at a Novus Ordo Mass. I’m thankful the Sacred Host was sitting nicely over my heart on my sweater where I quickly grabbed it up and consumed it. Since then, I always receive the Host on the tongue…standing at the English Mass, and of course, kneeling at the Communion rail during a Latin Mass.
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Oh, a couple more reasons. One for CIH and one against CIH. Well first this question. Don’t we as Catholics believe that Jesus is truly present in the bread and wine? As His Body and Blood?
Okay with that being asked. And the answer is yes. Here are two ways to reflect that may not have been thought about or thought about much.
For Communion in the hand- Are we not for a brief moment holding Our Lord just like Mary did in The Pieta? Holding his lifeless and stiff body. How can you not have a more personal encounter with Jesus? (Abuse could creep into this, because some people may take the Host home or keep it with them.) If they truly believe this act of devotion.
Against Communion on the Tongue- I’m part seroius and part joking. But still something to think about. Has anybody thought they are sticking out their tongue to Jesus and the Minister? Doesn’t that sound and look disrespectful, as well as irreverent?
Anyway that is my HMO. Take it for what’s it worth.
Okay with that being asked. And the answer is yes. Here are two ways to reflect that may not have been thought about or thought about much.
For Communion in the hand- Are we not for a brief moment holding Our Lord just like Mary did in The Pieta? Holding his lifeless and stiff body. How can you not have a more personal encounter with Jesus? (Abuse could creep into this, because some people may take the Host home or keep it with them.) If they truly believe this act of devotion.
Against Communion on the Tongue- I’m part seroius and part joking. But still something to think about. Has anybody thought they are sticking out their tongue to Jesus and the Minister? Doesn’t that sound and look disrespectful, as well as irreverent?
Anyway that is my HMO. Take it for what’s it worth.
F
Famule
Guest
Thank you!
L
LilyM
Guest
Jesus DID come right before the Apostles in His glorified body after the Resurrection - and they walked and talked with Him and ate with Him as they always had. They didn’t spend the whole 40 days on their knees before Him or anything.
Not to mention God DID ‘walk and talk’ face to face with several people in the OT - Adam and Eve in the Garden, Moses …
E
estesbob
Guest
So if Jesus appears before us we should stick our tongue out at him?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I think of these verses when I hear the argument that receiving one way or the other is more reverent.
Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
I think the laity should trust in the Church Christ left us and the Magisterium that runs the Church. Let them do their job.
I say, whatever the Church decrees is proper.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
I think the laity should trust in the Church Christ left us and the Magisterium that runs the Church. Let them do their job.
I say, whatever the Church decrees is proper.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
F
Famule
Guest
Just as each part of the Bible shows a different era, so does Revelation paint a new picture.
Part of the structure of the Mass as well as church archetecture, until recently, reflects Jewish worship. The Jewish people worshipped Him as God. He is our Father and seeks an intimate relationship with us, however, He is still God and deserves that respect.
There is so much “Oh what a friend we have in Jesus” attitude out there. He is so much more than that. “At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend.” What happened to that? He is right before us in that tabernacle and yet, so many people don’t even genuflect anymore. It is a whole attitude change. It may have to do with the American attitude. “All are equal.” This is not true in the Church and never has been. There are those that are above us. There are certain people that play certain roles in the Church and in the Liturgy. I for one am glad to see our pope recognizing that. He understands the idea that to add dignity to the priest adds dignity to the liturgy which in turn elevates our adoration of God. Those that understand the EF of the Mass know what I am talking about. You can see a difference. The Holy Father, sees that, and I for one am very excited about the possible changes and restoration coming down the road. Lets pray for the Holy Father and the other Church leaders.
Part of the structure of the Mass as well as church archetecture, until recently, reflects Jewish worship. The Jewish people worshipped Him as God. He is our Father and seeks an intimate relationship with us, however, He is still God and deserves that respect.
There is so much “Oh what a friend we have in Jesus” attitude out there. He is so much more than that. “At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend.” What happened to that? He is right before us in that tabernacle and yet, so many people don’t even genuflect anymore. It is a whole attitude change. It may have to do with the American attitude. “All are equal.” This is not true in the Church and never has been. There are those that are above us. There are certain people that play certain roles in the Church and in the Liturgy. I for one am glad to see our pope recognizing that. He understands the idea that to add dignity to the priest adds dignity to the liturgy which in turn elevates our adoration of God. Those that understand the EF of the Mass know what I am talking about. You can see a difference. The Holy Father, sees that, and I for one am very excited about the possible changes and restoration coming down the road. Lets pray for the Holy Father and the other Church leaders.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I honestly wondered if it was an “American” attitude when I thought of the laity as trying to run the Church. I trust the Magisterium and will do whatever they decree. We as laity should support them in whatever their decision is and quit trying to second guess them on everything. That’s kind of how the Church experienced the schisms. It would be nice to see people trying to figure out how to unify us more instead finding ways to divide us more.Just as each part of the Bible shows a different era, so does Revelation paint a new picture.
Part of the structure of the Mass as well as church archetecture, until recently, reflects Jewish worship. The Jewish people worshipped Him as God. He is our Father and seeks an intimate relationship with us, however, He is still God and deserves that respect.
There is so much “Oh what a friend we have in Jesus” attitude out there. He is so much more than that. “At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend.” What happened to that? He is right before us in that tabernacle and yet, so many people don’t even genuflect anymore. It is a whole attitude change. It may have to do with the American attitude. “All are equal.” This is not true in the Church and never has been. There are those that are above us. There are certain people that play certain roles in the Church and in the Liturgy. I for one am glad to see our pope recognizing that. He understands the idea that to add dignity to the priest adds dignity to the liturgy which in turn elevates our adoration of God. Those that understand the EF of the Mass know what I am talking about. You can see a difference. The Holy Father, sees that, and I for one am very excited about the possible changes and restoration coming down the road. Lets pray for the Holy Father and the other Church leaders.
Just my :twocents:.
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
F
Famule
Guest
Found this in another thread. Found it interesting. Quoting USMC:
Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;
St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);
The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;
The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;
The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils actually held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).
As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” [Fr. Rutler said that he fully expected her to say abortion.] “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’” (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).
Also, the late Fr. John Hardon has spoken out against this practice. On November 1st, 1997 at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is his answer:
"We were were concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.
"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
“And the American hierarchy took most… three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;
St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);
The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;
The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;
The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils actually held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).
As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” [Fr. Rutler said that he fully expected her to say abortion.] “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’” (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).
Also, the late Fr. John Hardon has spoken out against this practice. On November 1st, 1997 at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is his answer:
"We were were concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.
"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
“And the American hierarchy took most… three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
- Status