Communion in the hand

[Walking_Home]

Be adult in your faith: angels are representation, not “reality”, I mean: angels have no body like you!
Kneel your heart, not your legs!
I distributed communion to sick people, on their bed, to agony people…

And last, what do you mean by “Protestants”? Call them kindly, at least, “Lutherans” or “Anglicans”, not “Protestants”!

---

Card. Joseph Ratzinger —Now Pope Benedict XVI

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic and I apologize if I came across that way. I was trying to validate in my mind what you had written and I didn’t know if you were truly a deacon or if your signature was just a handle.

Apology accepted! Thank you!

Deacon Ed

 

[una_fides]

Kneel your heart, not your legs!

Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces and adored him that liveth for ever and ever.
Rev. 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne and the ancients and the four living creatures. And they fell down before the throne upon their faces and adored God,
Rev. 11:16 And the four and twenty ancients who sit on their seats in the sight of God, fell on their faces and adored God, saying: 17 We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, who art and who wast and who art to come: because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and thou hast reigned. 8 And the nations were angry: and thy wrath is come. And the time of the dead, that they should be judged and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants the prophets and the saints, and to them that fear thy name, little and great: and shouldest destroy them who have corrupted the earth.
Rev 19:4 And the four and twenty ancients and the four living creatures fell down and adored God that sitteth upon the throne, saying: Amen. Alleluia.
Mark 1:40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him and kneeling down, said to him: If thou wilt thou canst make me clean.
Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man, running up and kneeling before him, asked him: Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting?
Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn away from them a stone’s cast. And kneeling down, he prayed.
Acts 9:40 And they all being put forth, Peter, kneeling down, prayed. And turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes and, seeing Peter, sat up.
Acts 20:36 And when he had said these things, kneeling down, he prayed with them all.
Acts 21:5 And the days being expired, departing we went forward, they all bringing us on our way, with their wives and children, till we were out of the city. And we kneeled down on the shore: and we prayed.
Gen. 17:3 Abram fell flat on his face.
Num. 16:4 When Moses heard this, he fell flat on his face:
Num. 16:22 They fell flat on their face, and said: O most mighty, the God of the spirits of all flesh, for one man’s sin shall thy wrath rage against all?
Josh. 5:15 Josue fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, said: What saith my lord to his servant?
Ruth 2:10 She fell on her face, and worshipping upon the ground, said to him: Whence cometh this to me, that I should find grace before thy eyes, and that thou shouldst vouchsafe to take notice of me, a woman of another country?
2Sam. 9:6 And when Miphiboseth the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come to David, he fell on his face and worshipped. And David said: Miphiboseth? And he answered: Behold thy servant.
1Kings 18:39 And when all the people saw this, they fell on their faces, and they said: The Lord, he is God; the Lord, he is God.
Ezek. 44:4 And he brought me by the way of the north gate, in the sight of the house: and I saw, and behold the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord: and I fell on my face.
Exodus 34:8 And Moses making haste, bowed down prostrate unto the earth, and adoring, 9 Said: If I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, I beseech thee that thou wilt go with us, (for it is a stiffnecked people) and take away our iniquities and sin, and possess us.
Deut. 9:25 And I lay prostrate before the Lord forty days and nights, in which I humbly besought him, that he would not destroy you as he had threatened:
Tob. 12:22 Then they lying prostrate for three hours upon their face, blessed God, and rising up, they told all his wonderful works.
Judith 4:8 And the priests put on haircloths, and they caused the little children to lie prostrate before the temple of the Lord, and the altar of the Lord they covered with haircloth.
Judith 9:1 And when they were gone, Judith went into her oratory: and putting on haircloth, laid ashes on her head: and falling down prostrate before the Lord, she cried to the Lord, saying:
Judith 10:1 And it came to pass, when she had ceased to cry to the Lord, that she rose from the place wherein she lay prostrate before the Lord.
2Mac. 13:12 So when they had all done this together, and had craved mercy of the Lord with weeping and fasting, lying prostrate on the ground for three days continually, Judas exhorted them to make themselves ready.
2Chr. 20:18 Then Josaphat, and Juda, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell flat on the ground before the Lord, and adored him.

These are just some verses I quickly pulled up referencing worship to God by either kneeling or being prostrate before his presence. The ideal position before almighty God is lying prostrate on your face before him. Since that is not practical at Mass, kneeling also shows the adoration and respect due to the Almighty.

Faith without works is dead. We show our faith by our works. In the same manner, when we kneel before Almighty God, we are showing our inward disposition through our outward actions.
Let us bend both our hearts and our knees in adoration to our Creator and sovereign Lord.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces and adored him that liveth for ever and ever. …snip…

Lk 18:9-14 He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

It’s not a matter of posture, it’s a matter of interior disposition.

St. John Cassian writes:

This, too, we ought to know,–that from the evening of Saturday which precedes the Sunday, up to the following evening, among the Egyptians they never kneel, nor from Easter to Whitsuntide; nor do they at these times observe a rule of fasting, the reason for which shall be Explained in its proper place in the Conferences of the Elders, if the Lord permits. At present we only propose to run through the causes very briefly, lest our book exceed its due limits and prove tiresome or burdensome to the reader.

The Council of Trullo, Canon XC:

WE have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we should ignore the fulness of this observance we make it plain to the faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer until the evening of Sunday, at which time after the entrance for compline, again with banded knees we offer our prayers to the Lord. For taking the night after the Sabbath, which was the forerunner of our Lord’s resurrection, we begin from it to sing in the spirit hymns to God, leading our feast out of darkness into light, and thus during an entire day and night, we celebrate the Resurrection.

The First Council of Nicaea (325), Canon 20:

Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.

Deacon Ed

 

[rinnie]

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

 

[una_fides]

Lk 18:9-14 He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

It’s not a matter of posture, it’s a matter of interior disposition.

St. John Cassian writes:The Council of Trullo, Canon XC:

The First Council of Nicaea (325), Canon 20eacon Ed

How did Christ pray in the garden? And how does Scripture say his apostles prayed? It was a Jewish practice to pray standing that the early Church continued in her liturgy as a sign of sacrifice and as a sign of the resurrection. The Church, however, changed that in order to return to earlier apostolic tradition of how the apostles and our Lord himself prayed and to more genuinely reflect and demonstrate adoration of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Please show me where the Church teaches that Communion in the hand has NOT produced any abuses or any decrease in faith in the Real Presence whatsoever.

No need for me to do this as it is you who are claiming, without any evidence, the opposite.

The Church can not teach error.

 

[PJM]

I consider receiving communion in the hand as sacrilegious and I can’t understand why the Catholic church allows this. I was taught in the catholic school that the priest’s index fingers and thumbs were consecrated and he was the only one allowed to touch the host. Also, why is it OK to stand to receive holy communion but out of respect for the holy eucharist, we genuflect before entering the pew and we kneel at the consecration. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Actually the RCC does not “permit such abuse,” it is only tolerated!

The Vatican II Fathers specifically voted such an abuse down.
Memoriale Dominihttp://www.memoriale Domini.com

Instruction On The Manner Of Distributing Holy Communion

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship

May 19, 1969

For this reason it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms.

These changes have made of the eucharistic banquet and the faithful fulfillment of Christ’s command a clearer and more vital symbol. At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”(2) As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."(3) “For it is the Body of Christ.”(4)

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.(6)

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”(7) that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which "The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, …

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually…

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

**Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted? **

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

**Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop? **

Yes: 751

No: 1,215

Invalid votes, 70

**3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation? **

Yes: 835

No: 1,185

Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

 

[una_fides]

Kneeling is also a form of penance as well as adoration. Deacon Ed, please understand that I am NOT saying that it is wrong to pray standing by any means, for that would be pure ignorance. Nor am I saying that kneeling when praying is necessarily superior to standing when praying. What I am saying is that kneeling is a sign of adoration and that it seems most proper to receive Communion in a such as state rather than standing. I do believe, however, that receiving Communion on the tongue is objectively better than receiving on the hand out of the potential for abuse and out of showing the most respect and reverence for our Lord so that particles are not defiled.

Here is an informative article I just read from the CE on kneeling: newadvent.org/cathen/06423a.htm

It is not just the inward disposition. It is both our inward disposition and outward display of that inward disposition that is important. When we stand at mass to pray, we are doing so as an outward sign of worship as when we kneel. However, certain aspects of Mass and of our lives make certain outward dispositions more fitting than others. Again, my argument is that kneeling is more fitting, at least to my western mind and according to the Scriptures, with genuine worship as well as with penance. Your example of the publican from Scripture is not a valid example since it was the Jewish practice to pray standing in the temple, and the publican was praying as the Jewish law prescribed.

 

[Member]

Actually the RCC does not “permit such abuse,” it is only tolerated!

The Vatican II Fathers specifically voted such an abuse down.
Memoriale Dominihttp://www.memoriale Domini.com

Instruction On The Manner Of Distributing Holy Communion

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship

May 19, 1969

For this reason it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms.

These changes have made of the eucharistic banquet and the faithful fulfillment of Christ’s command a clearer and more vital symbol. At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”(2) As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."(3) “For it is the Body of Christ.”(4)

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.(6)

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”(7) that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which "The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, …

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually…

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

**Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted? **

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

**Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop? **

Yes: 751

No: 1,215

Invalid votes, 70

**3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation? **

Yes: 835

No: 1,185

Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Thank you very much for the information. God bless you.

 

[Member]

Yes, it doesn’t make sense. Hopefully Pope Benedict will rectify that problem which started out as an indult and eventually became the norm.

I don’t really know how the practice started. Maybe it was for hygienic reasons? The second problem is the use of “Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist”.

Another problem that is a concern for me is if Christ is fully present under both forms why is it necessary to distribute communion under both species, bread and wine. This seems to be a very risky practice as well as being hygienically unsafe.

 

[rinnie]

Another problem that is a concern for me is if Christ is fully present under both forms why is it necessary to distribute communion under both species, bread and wine. This seems to be a very risky practice as well as being hygienically unsafe.

This is my blood and body that has been given up for you. When you eat this bread and dirnk this wine you have been given the Living Christ. That would be a risk worth taking to me anyday.

Do you really think that if Christ can come to us in the bread and wine and tell us to take it, and he has the power to do that, that it could possibly be unsafe. Please.

You do not understand the Power of the Eucharist. thats for sure.

 

[Walking_Home]

Another problem that is a concern for me is if Christ is fully present under both forms why is it necessary to distribute communion under both species, bread and wine. This seems to be a very risky practice as well as being hygienically unsafe.

---

It is not necessary —the Church has allowed the Chalice to be offered to the laity —but the Church does not mandate for the Chalice to be offered in each and every Mass/parish , or that the laity must receive from the Chalice.

 

[Member]

This is my blood and body that has been given up for you. When you eat this bread and dirnk this wine you have been given the Living Christ. That would be a risk worth taking to me anyday.

Do you really think that if Christ can come to us in the bread and wine and tell us to take it, and he has the power to do that, that it could possibly be unsafe. Please.

You do not understand the Power of the Eucharist. thats for sure.

Well I guess I know where you stand. I don’t know how you can make that statement since you do not know me.

 

[rinnie]

Well I guess I know where you stand. I don’t know how you can make that statement since you do not know me.

I am just saying that if you believe in the Eucharist and how powerful it is, How could your worry about it being unclean. Don’t you think God covers everything?

 

[una_fides]

No need for me to do this as it is you who are claiming, without any evidence, the opposite.

The Church can not teach error.

Ok, I’m honestly trying to understand what you are saying from your perspective here, but I’m having difficulty. It seems that you are somehow equating the permitting of an exception to the rule as the same thing as the Church actually positively teaching something. The Church has never taught that Communion in the hand does not produce abuse. You obviously also are not reading the many posts on here (or are purposely ignoring them) that show official Church documents that demonstrate that abuses are likely to occur with Communion in the hand and that they must be guarded against.

As has been demonstrated, the Church has been TOLERATING such abuse and warning against its continuing. It has never positively taught anything that you are trying to claim it has by simply permitting a special privilege in certain limited areas. The Church also tolerates false religions but that does not mean that they are objectively good. Communion in the hand is objectively inferior to receiving it on the tongue because of the abuses and problems that Communion on the hand can bring along with it.

Here’s what the Church has taught on the manner. (I took all these from previous posts that I have repeatedly told you to read).

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
“A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

RS–2004
However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4711230&postcount=69

More abuses have taken place as a result of Communion in the hand. Are you still not willing to admit this?

 

[rinnie]

Ok, I’m honestly trying to understand what you are saying from your perspective here, but I’m having difficulty. It seems that you are somehow equating the permitting of an exception to the rule as the same thing as the Church actually positively teaching something. The Church has never taught that Communion in the hand does not produce abuse. You obviously also are not reading the many posts on here (or are purposely ignoring them) that show official Church documents that demonstrate that abuses are likely to occur with Communion in the hand and that they must be guarded against.

As has been demonstrated, the Church has been TOLERATING such abuse and warning against its continuing. It has never positively taught anything that you are trying to claim it has by simply permitting a special privilege in certain limited areas. The Church also tolerates false religions but that does not mean that they are objectively good. Communion in the hand is objectively inferior to receiving it on the tongue because of the abuses and problems that Communion on the hand can bring along with it.

Here’s what the Church has taught on the manner. (I took all these from previous posts that I have repeatedly told you to read).

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
“A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

RS–2004
However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4711230&postcount=69

More abuses have taken place as a result of Communion in the hand. Are you still not willing to admit this?

Tell me this do you think that giving someone communion on the hand or on the tongue is going to stop abuse. What is the differene if some spit it out given either way. Anyone that would abuse the Body of Christ in any form is in big trouble. They will have to answer for that abuse not the Church. God does not make the Church responsible for our sins we are,

 

[una_fides]

Tell me this do you think that giving someone communion on the hand or on the tongue is going to stop abuse. What is the differene if some spit it out given either way. Anyone that would abuse the Body of Christ in any form is in big trouble. They will have to answer for that abuse not the Church. God does not make the Church responsible for our sins we are,

We are not attacking the Church here. We are calling into question the permitting of Communion in the hand, which we can do as faithful Catholics, and we have valid reasons for arguing so. If you disagree, that’s your opinion. You seem to think that the Church is impeccable in all her decisions and in all her temporal laws and practices and indults she may permit. I disagree. I think that the Church can err and has erred in the past in her judgment of temporal matters; however, that fact does not mean that she has nor she can err when she teaches infallibly. Make no mistake. If the Church commands something, we are bound to obey. I disagree with Archbishop Lefevbre in his disobedience to Rome even if he perceived it was a necessity. The Church, however, has never commanded that anyone receive Communion in the hand, so we have a choice. I am not by any means saying it is objectively sinful to receive Communion in the hand. However, I am saying that it is better to receive on the tongue and that it would prevent abuses and help to more clearly teach and communicate the truth of the Real Presence. Without proper catechesis, Communion in the hand carries with it a potential to lead towards a disregard or disbelief in the Real Presence of our Lord. Many churches today lack any proper catechesis regarding reception of Communion. I was told in my RCIA class to receive on the hand and was not even told that you could receive on the tongue! Furthermore, the same deacon said that the best way to receive Communion was when you use a LEAVENED loaf of bread, which is forbidden in the Latin Rite! I asked him what about particles and crumbs. He did not seem to find any problems. The point is that people are not being taught the right things, and Communion in the hand only opens the door to more and more abuses.

 

[rinnie]

We are not attacking the Church here. We are calling into question the permitting of Communion in the hand, which we can do as faithful Catholics, and we have valid reasons for arguing so. If you disagree, that’s your opinion. You seem to think that the Church is impeccable in all her decisions and in all her temporal laws and practices and indults she may permit. I disagree. I think that the Church can err and has erred in the past in her judgment of temporal matters; however, that fact does not mean that she has nor she can err when she teaches infallibly. Make no mistake. If the Church commands something, we are bound to obey. I disagree with Archbishop Lefevbre in his disobedience to Rome even if he perceived it was a necessity. The Church, however, has never commanded that anyone receive Communion in the hand, so we have a choice. I am not by any means saying it is objectively sinful to receive Communion in the hand. However, I am saying that it is better to receive on the tongue and that it would prevent abuses and help to more clearly teach and communicate the truth of the Real Presence. Without proper catechesis, Communion in the hand carries with it a potential to lead towards a disregard or disbelief in the Real Presence of our Lord. Many churches today lack any proper catechesis regarding reception of Communion. I was told in my RCIA class to receive on the hand and was not even told that you could receive on the tongue! Furthermore, the same deacon said that the best way to receive Communion was when you use a LEAVENED loaf of bread, which is forbidden in the Latin Rite! I asked him what about particles and crumbs. He did not seem to find any problems. The point is that people are not being taught the right things, and Communion in the hand only opens the door to more and more abuses.

Yes I guess you are right. The only thing I can say is we have a Priest and Bishop and I believe that they are running the Church in the correct manner and it is not for Me to question them. I believe that my heart is to go to Church and God knows that. I think that if this went against the rules of the Church it would not happen. As far as the Leavened bread I do not understand that, But I can say I have never seen it either. I think that your Bishop is who you should ask that about. I am sure he can either take care of it or explain the reasons to you. I was always taught that if you do not understand ask the Priest, if you still do not understand ask that Bishop. Now you are saying this was in a Roman Catholic Church?

 

[una_fides]

Yes I guess you are right. The only thing I can say is we have a Priest and Bishop and I believe that they are running the Church in the correct manner and it is not for Me to question them. I believe that my heart is to go to Church and God knows that. I think that if this went against the rules of the Church it would not happen. As far as the Leavened bread I do not understand that, But I can say I have never seen it either. I think that your Bishop is who you should ask that about. I am sure he can either take care of it or explain the reasons to you. I was always taught that if you do not understand ask the Priest, if you still do not understand ask that Bishop. Now you are saying this was in a Roman Catholic Church?

Yes this happened in a Roman Catholic Church. Let me share very briefly my experience in nearby churches and the rebellious and heretical priests I have encountered. At the church where I went to rcia, the priest told people to NOT go to confession and instead to just pray to God on their own. In a homily at Easter he claimed that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was not necessary and that Jesus did not necessarily rise bodily from the dead and that his bodily resurrection was not part of our faith. He has claimed that Vatican II changed things that it never did. He also disobeys the proscribed order of mass and adds and changes all sorts of prayers that he is forbidden to do. I spoke with a friend of mine who knew the previous bishop very well and said she’s sure he’s aware of him and his abuses. Yet he continues to let them persist. Then I started going to numerous other churches in the area, and noticed the same types of problems. Priests improvising the mass and doing whatever they want, a practice the Church has repeatedly said is a “grave offense.” Modernism has invaded the Church hierarchy on a very large scale. Read Pope Pius X’s warnings against the modernists and there heresies and you will see many of their errors being taught in seminaries today. It is starting to get better, but there are still so many bad priests and very few traditional ones. One priest in the area has been repeatedly asked to bring the Traditional Latin Mass to the beautiful old parish and the priest is obligated to do so under the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificom yet he is defying the pope and has said “not on my watch.” He refuses to have anything to do with this most ancient liturgy and instead he persists with improvised prayers and liturgical abuses performed by extraordinary ministers. The Church is in a time of theological crisis like never before.