Communion in the hand

[nbjayme]

I never said it was proper, I’m saying it’s somewhat more understandable, though not more excusable.

1. Are we not speaking about mass… or what page are you on now???

Who’s joking now?

 

[LilyM]

1. would the Father allow a true devotee to accept an unconsecrated hosts.

According to St Bernardine, He would and did.

Either you say God has no power to inspire the Priests to do what is Good for the sake of his beloved Church Faithful. Or God does not know anything at all.

Of course must mean that the priests you’ve just been blasting who have introduced communion in the hand and liturgical dancing into your NO ‘Messes’ are simply doing what is good for the sake of His beloved church faithful, no?

God can inspire priests, but He allows them their free will, even when they want to do what is wrong. He doesn’t force them to do His will exclusively any more than He forces you and me.

believe in God’s Providence and I place all my trust in Him who desires one thing —> salvation for my soul.

Oh I’m not saying you’re not saved, but invalid sacraments are no help to your salvation and might be a hindrance

 

[nbjayme]

1. St. Bellarmine was reprimanding the Priests who do not do their duty with diligence. And, yes it can invalidate their consecration.

But to say, that without speaking the word aloud makes it suspicious is to lose Faith in God who is the source of HOLY Inspiration and Grace. If you doubt God, that’s your business and your choice. The countless Saints f the Centuries proved you otherwise.

 

[nbjayme]

“Of course must mean that the priests you’ve just been blasting who have introduced communion in the hand and liturgical dancing into your NO ‘Messes’ are simply doing what is good for the sake of His beloved church faithful, no?”

As you said it comes from their own free will. Therefore, not from the inspiration of God.

Or simply put: From their fruits you shall know them…

 

[John_Higgins]

nbjayme:

perpetual mass

Certainly the Mass is perpetual, the form under which it is celebrated, however, is not.

John

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon Ed, Sorry I missed alot of this thread, but what is your stance on Communion in the hand?

Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church as an indult in those countries that have asked for it. It is neither inherently good or bad – it is one of two ways to receive communion. As a bi-ritual deacon I give communion by intinction in the Melkite Church and on the tongue or in the hand in the Latin Church depending on the wishes of the communicant.

Deacon Ed

 

[weepixie71]

receiving in the hand i would not call a sin. not smart… but not a sin.
the reason why i say not smart is because i as a parent know all the disgusting things i have had to do during a mass. change diapers, wipe snotty noses, etc.
i see people pick their noses or blow them into a kerchief.
little thoughtless gestures we just dont think twice about.

another, and way more serious problem is that once the host is put into someone elses hands, there is no guarantee it is going to go into that persons mouth.
devil worshipers were known for going into our catholic churches and taking the host and desecrating by doing horrible things such as urinating on it, spitting at it, etc.

i think it is a foolish to risk such a thing.

 

[maryjk]

receiving in the hand i would not call a sin. not smart… but not a sin.
the reason why i say not smart is because i as a parent know all the disgusting things i have had to do during a mass. change diapers, wipe snotty noses, etc.
i see people pick their noses or blow them into a kerchief.
little thoughtless gestures we just dont think twice about.

another, and way more serious problem is that once the host is put into someone elses hands, there is no guarantee it is going to go into that persons mouth.
devil worshipers were known for going into our catholic churches and taking the host and desecrating by doing horrible things such as urinating on it, spitting at it, etc.

i think it is a foolish to risk such a thing.

You change diapers DURING Mass, then don’t wash your hands? Maybe I am fixating on the wrong thing, but when I had a small child, I would leave Mass, go to the restroom, change the diaper, WASH my hands, then return to Mass.

For the second part, I think it has been shown here and on various other threads, that desecrating the Host can happen, even if someone receives on the tongue.

For those that will ask, I receive on the tongue, my son receives in the hand. I have no problem with either.

 

[rinnie]

Ok. I now understand a little more where you are coming from here. You have not yet studied what is and is not liturgical abuse, and therefore are unable to spot it when you encounter it. You think that everything is fine and dandy and that the priests at the Novus Ordo parishes you attend are doing everything by the rules and teaching everything soundly. Well… let me ask you some quick questions:

1. Do any of the priests change the words at Mass? (I suggest purchasing a missal and reading the prayers along with the priests. If they willfully depart from the words in your missal, they are committing a GRAVE offense against the Church and against the faithful. Sources and explanation of nature of the offense to follow.)
2. Do the people hold hands during the Our Father?
3. Has anyone other than a priest or deacon given a homily at Mass?
4. Have you ever been to a parish where everyone stands during the consecration?
5. Have you ever seen someone denied Communion for kneeling? (a rare practice but I’ve heard of it happening)
6. Have you ever seen a priest make or tell someone receive Communion in the hand? (again rare, but it happens)
7. Have you ever seen liturgical dance?
   There are many more, but if you have seen any of these, they are serious abuses against the Mass as the Church has said it must be celebrated in all Latin Rite Churches. Vatican II expressly forbid any priest to change anything on his own authority. Here is what the Church has said on the matter:

Furthermore, liturgical abuses can even produce invalid masses that do not produce the Real Presence of Christ! See this article: ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

Take the quiz on this site to help you spot liturgical abuse:
massabuses.com/
This site explains the top 10 liturgical abuses and cites the Church laws proving so for each of them:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp
One last site that outlines the degrees of gravity of offenses:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw_liturgical_abuses.htm#abuses

Now please let me talk for myself. I said I have never seen any of these things that Go against the Teachings of the Church. And I would much rather study the word and get to know my faith better then investigate these abuses.

I for one cannot see any Priest do these things and everyone in the Parish just looking the other way. I am not saying what you say is true or not, how can I. I do not know you. But on the same thing I cannot pass judgement on the Church either. Do you see my Point.

But I would suggest that you get a hold of the People in this Church and all work together. If this is happening I cannnot see a Bishop turning a blind eye if the Church sticks together. And I agree if these abuses are happening they should be taken care of immediately.

I do not want to argue or fight with you. But on the same token I cannot agree with something I know nothing about or have seen,

Trust me if I saw something wrong I would ask Father right away.

 

[rinnie]

Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church as an indult in those countries that have asked for it. It is neither inherently good or bad – it is one of two ways to receive communion. As a bi-ritual deacon I give communion by intinction in the Melkite Church and on the tongue or in the hand in the Latin Church depending on the wishes of the communicant.

Deacon Ed

Thank You Deacon Ed, and I believe that you addressed this question and gave us a accurate answer.

 

[Lee_M]

I prefer to follow the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas in this matter…

“Because out of reverence toward this 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…”

St Thomas Aquinas then goes on to state that it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it!! Seeing as it is valid to receive in the hand, does this mean that the church are saying St Thomas was in error???

Was St. Thomas Aquinas infallable?

 

[LilyM]

Was St. Thomas Aquinas infallable?

I was thinking - this is the same St Thomas Aquinas whose views on the Immaculate Conception, at least arguably, don’t tally up with the dogma as defined by Rome.

He was never bishop or Pope, never part of the Magisterium, important and influential though he is.

 

[una_fides]

I was thinking - this is the same St Thomas Aquinas whose views on the Immaculate Conception, at least arguably, don’t tally up with the dogma as defined by Rome.

He was never bishop or Pope, never part of the Magisterium, important and influential though he is.

From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII. A couple quick gems:

Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…
We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences… Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

He wasn’t infallible, but if to hold to his teachings means that I’ll “never be found swerving from the path of the truth,” then it’s good enough for me! I’m honestly getting sick of having to post this all the time on here. It seems like people love to try to attack St. Thomas’ writings today for some reason… Could it be they attack little things because they disagree with him on lots of others… hmm… Pope Innocent VI and Leo XIII both confirmed that to assail his writings brings with it automatic suspicion of error in every case. Idk about you, but I don’t want to be listed in that category…
True, he’s not infallible, and anything he said that has been clarified to the contrary by magisterium in the past 700+ years would then obviously be correct and St. Thomas would have subjected himself to that decision in his time. All the rest of his writings, however, can be trusted because numerous popes have assured us they can be.

 

[pnewton]

He wasn’t infallible, but if to hold to his teachings means that I’ll “never be found swerving from the path of the truth,” then it’s good enough for me!

He was dated. One can not simply ignore historical context. This may be irrelevant when dealing with doctrine, but should not be ignored when considering disciplinary issues, such as manner of reception.

 

[weepixie71]

You change diapers DURING Mass, then don’t wash your hands? Maybe I am fixating on the wrong thing, but when I had a small child, I would leave Mass, go to the restroom, change the diaper, WASH my hands, then return to Mass.

For the second part, I think it has been shown here and on various other threads, that desecrating the Host can happen, even if someone receives on the tongue.

For those that will ask, I receive on the tongue, my son receives in the hand. I have no problem with either.

yes i wash my hands as efficiently as i can when my husband is out of town and i have to juggle 4 children with me crammed into a one bathroom stall that does not have a changing table and since most of the time i have to go to mass in a chapel in a hospital it is a very long walk.

and if that is the most disgusting part you found from what i wrote i am sorry for you

 

[una_fides]

…This may be irrelevant when dealing with doctrine, but should not be ignored when considering disciplinary issues, such as manner of reception.

I completely agree with you that St. Thomas’ writings regarding disciplinary issues “should not be ignored.” He speaks of theological reasons and practical reasons regarding why only the priest should touch the consecrated host, and these reasons are real. One of which is that touching of the sacred species should be limited to as little as possible and another is that priests by their ordination have a special privilege of being the only ones who can actually offer the sacrifice at Mass and make him present and they do so in persona Christi. If we want to increase vocations, giving the priesthood its special and singular honor and regard that used to be much more evident will certainly help. Ever wonder why traditional parishes have more vocations?

 

[una_fides]

But I would suggest that you get a hold of the People in this Church and all work together. If this is happening I cannnot see a Bishop turning a blind eye if the Church sticks together. And I agree if these abuses are happening they should be taken care of immediately.

I do not want to argue or fight with you. But on the same token I cannot agree with something I know nothing about or have seen,

Trust me if I saw something wrong I would ask Father right away.

It’s a hopeless cause and it’s much much more widespread than you even realize. I’ve tried approaching the priest. To be frank, he is a heretic (b/c of the denials of infallible dogmas) and is disobedient to Church authority. He cannot justify his positions theologically. He just claims it’s all “in the spirit of Vatican II” and that “Vatican II changed things.” These are false arguments; nevertheless, he persists. From what I’ve been told, the bishop is already aware of him and his abuses. Furthermore, I’ve observed similar abuses, the most common is changing words at Mass, in virtually every parish in that entire area. One church doesn’t even have kneelers, and no one kneels during the consecration! How could the bishop not be aware of that? So you don’t want to spend time investigating or even finding out what liturgical abuse is so that you can know it when you see it. Instead you are happy being blissfully ignorant of what is taking place all around you. For one, you did not know that removing holy water during the season of Lent is forbidden, and it’s taking place in your parish. (I think it may be permitted on Good Friday if I’m not mistaken, but beyond that it’s abuse and it’s completely forbidden.) So why don’t you go and sit down and have a talk with your priest and bring this document with you that explains how that is an abuse: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp (It’s #10 on the top ten liturgical abuses list.) Let me know what happens when you do ok. While you’re at it, will you at least please read the other 9 most common abuses so you will be able to spot them when they occur. Thanks. Good luck.

 

[una_fides]

For the second part, I think it has been shown here and on various other threads, that desecrating the Host can happen, even if someone receives on the tongue

I think it has also been shown on here and other thread that desecrating the host becomes much much more easier with Communion in the hand. Bishops have reported such, and the same decree that issued the indult permitting the reception of CITH in the US also warned against guarding against the abuses that can be more easily facilitated as a result.

 

[Lee_M]

It seems like people love to try to attack St. Thomas’ writings today for some reason… Could it be they attack little things because they disagree with him on lots of others… hmm… Pope Innocent VI and Leo XIII both confirmed that to assail his writings brings with it automatic suspicion of error in every case. Idk about you, but I don’t want to be listed in that category…
True, he’s not infallible, and anything he said that has been clarified to the contrary by magisterium in the past 700+ years would then obviously be correct and St. Thomas would have subjected himself to that decision in his time. All the rest of his writings, however, can be trusted because numerous popes have assured us they can be.

I’m not attacking his writings. I just asked if he was infallible. He was not a pope or bishop and receiving on the tongue being more reverent than on the hand is an opinion. He could never make that a fact. You cant judge one’s heart and know how reverent they are being by receiving by mouth or the hand. I was taught to receive on the hand and I do believe that I am receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is the same with Mother Theresa. I’ve read her comment several times but it doesn’t make it infallible.

 

[maryjk]

I think it has also been shown on here and other thread that desecrating the host becomes much much more easier with Communion in the hand. Bishops have reported such, and the same decree that issued the indult permitting the reception of CITH in the US also warned against guarding against the abuses that can be more easily facilitated as a result.

Okay, it is easier.
Maybe even much easier.
We should be on guard against it. But since the Bishops knew that it would be easier, they issued the warning with the indult.

Which means they knew it could be a problem. They still issued the indult. What is the question here? We shouldn’t trust our Bishops? We shouldn’t trust the Church?

Sorry, I am with Deacon Ed.

Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church as an indult in those countries that have asked for it. It is neither inherently good or bad – it is one of two ways to receive communion. As a bi-ritual deacon I give communion by intinction in the Melkite Church and on the tongue or in the hand in the Latin Church depending on the wishes of the communicant.

Deacon Ed