Communion in the Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abortion is not legal per the Church. That is what makes it not ok, for Catholics at least, regardless of what secular laws say.

Communion in the hand is legal per the Church. That is what makes it ok for Catholics.

I’m sure there are other threads that we can continue the abortion conversation on if anyone wants to.
Diggerdomer - 486 posts in 9 days is impressive…

That the Church says abortion is illegal, is NOT what makes abortion wrong. Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby. Murder is wrong. Murder is not only wrong BECAUSE the Church says it is.

CITH is unfortunately allowed by the Church. This doesn’t make it right - the Church only legalised it because it was already being done. I would call it a toleration.
 
No; I disagree with your point, I did not prove it.

Communion in the hand is logical, philosophically reasonable and dogmatically correct for Catholics because it’s what the Catholic Church teaches. Just like communion on the tongue.
Actually, you just proved my point again.

The Church does not teach CITH. It permits it, by indult in North America. If you can provide a logical, philosophical, or dogmatic proof to defend your argument then let me know. Otherwise, continually refering to the GIRM is all you’ve got.
 
Diggerdomer - 486 posts in 9 days is impressive…

That the Church says abortion is illegal, is NOT what makes abortion wrong. Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby. Murder is wrong. Murder is not only wrong BECAUSE the Church says it is.

CITH is unfortunately allowed by the Church. This doesn’t make it right - the Church only legalised it because it was already being done. I would call it a toleration.
CITH is an ancient practice of the Church. Nothing unfortunate about it.
 
Actually, you just proved my point again.

The Church does not teach CITH. It permits it, by indult in North America. If you can provide a logical, philosophical, or dogmatic proof to defend your argument then let me know. Otherwise, continually refering to the GIRM is all you’ve got.
The GIRM is the universal law of the Church. No indult is needed. Appealing to the universal law of the Church is apparently not good enough for you so there’s probably no point in continuing. If the universal law of the Church is “all I’ve got” then thanks, I’m in pretty good hands no matter what your logic, philosophy, or personal dogmas might think.
 
CITH is an ancient practice of the Church. Nothing unfortunate about it.
Better understanding of the respect that Our Lord deserves inspired the Church to develop from CITH to COTT.

Tell me, what inspired man to decide that Our Lord no longer needs that respect?

As I said, the Church tolerates it at the moment.
 
Actually, you just proved my point again.

The Church does not teach CITH. It permits it, by indult in North America. If you can provide a logical, philosophical, or dogmatic proof to defend your argument then let me know. Otherwise, continually refering to the GIRM is all you’ve got.
It permits it by indult in other countries, too. Also, CITH wasn’t a new innovation. It is an ancient practice.
 
Better understanding of the respect that Our Lord deserves inspired the Church to develop from CITH to COTT.

Tell me, what inspired man to decide that Our Lord no longer needs that respect?

As I said, the Church tolerates it at the moment.
That is your assumption and not one shared by millions of Catholics. To say that Catholics who choose to receive CITH have less respect for the Lord is highly presumptious on your part. (Not to mention judgmental, and scripture has alot to say about that.)
 
Tell me, what inspired man to decide that Our Lord no longer needs that respect?
 
In response to the OP, I don’t have a problem taking communion in the hand from a lay person, however I prefer communion by mouth from a priest. As a child (born in '64) I was told we were not allowed to touch the host. I do remember my First Holy Communion taken at a communion rail and I was kneeling, but soon thereafter rails were removed.
 
I’m in pretty good hands no matter what your logic, philosophy, or personal dogmas might think.
It’s not my dogma, it’s the Church’s. In this thread and the lay ministers one you completely ignore history, philosophy and dogma by incessantly chanting: “it’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM!” What you are avoiding is how it got there and whether it should come out.

What is your agenda in this forum?
 
CITH is an ancient practice of the Church. Nothing unfortunate about it.
There were many ancient practices in the Church that are no longer performed. More than most people would probably realize. Just because something was done in antiquity does not in any way always justify or validate its’ use now.

As I have pointed out, repeatedly, although almost always ignored by the Communion in the hand crowd, receiving in the hand in the early Church made perfect sense. It was a logical, practical and useful practice that worked quite well for a while due to the circumstances…

Then it slipped badly and became something truly atrocious and was stopped. With good reason I might add… It was re-introduced without Church permission in the mid sixties and grew to a point where the Church was pretty much forced to allow it again.

It has not been decreed the proper way to receive by the Church in any way these days and in fact is not permitted everywhere. I would bet that is a big surprise to a lot of people here.

But yes, you can so receive if you choose to, again depending in where you are located… I have yet to hear a substantive argument as to why one would want to, but yes you certainly can do so.
 
It’s not my dogma, it’s the Church’s. In this thread and the lay ministers one you completely ignore history, philosophy and dogma by incessantly chanting: “it’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM!” What you are avoiding is how it got there and whether it should come out.

What is your agenda in this forum?
My agenda: learning more about the Catholic faith.

How it got there and whether it should be there is interesting. My point is simply that it’s there, so regardless of the where and how it’s the current teaching of the Church and to say it’s not is simply not true. If you can show me why Catholics are not obliged to follow the GIRM I’m willing to learn. I understand and respect your opinions, but they are not binding on Catholics as the GIRM (and all other current authoritative Church teaching) is.
 
My agenda: learning more about the Catholic faith.

How it got there and whether it should be there is interesting. My point is simply that it’s there, so regardless of the where and how it’s the current teaching of the Church and to say it’s not is simply not true. If you can show me why Catholics are not obliged to follow the GIRM I’m willing to learn. I understand and respect your opinions, but they are not binding on Catholics as the GIRM (and all other current authoritative Church teaching) is.
Good for you.Keep on learning.👍
 
=palmas85;4990690]Thanks. I actually know that there are NO Vatican II Documents that advocate, propose or in any way support a return to receiving in the hand. However, when I saw in the article that our young friend had posted that just such an outright deception was being put forth, I had to say something. For too long I have heard this exact same sort of nonsense and outright lying going on in defense of the custom.
And notice, that when I put forth the reasons that the early Church did receive in the hand, they were ignored, brushed aside said not to matter and were in fact irrelevant, It seems that in these matters the truth about certain things doesn’t matter in the least. Sometimes I am nearly speechless at how apparently educated and thinking people can totally ignore and disregard the truth in order to support a position that they want to defend.:confused:
Dear friend in Christ,

The Divine Attribute that I find most difficult to comprehend is God’s Divine Patience.

May our Loving Lord, contine to use us in exposing the truth, His TRUTH!

Love and prayers,
 
=LilyM;4990856]I wasn’t referring to them voting during Vatican 2 - infallible Magisterium from the world’s bishops is not only exercised in the form of an Ecumenical Council, surely.
Be that as it may, modes of reception of communion are NOT matters of faith and morals, but matters of discipline. The mere fact that the discipline was voted on doesn’t transform it into dogma.
Thus as a discipline it is every bit as alterable as the discipline on priestly celibacy. This is shown by the fact that the discplines in regard to Communion have (clearly) been altered several times in the past, prior even to Vatican 2.
No Pope would be permitted - by the Holy Spirit - to tamper with the mode of reception IF it were a matter of faith and morals, or binding teaching. Just as the Bishops weren’t permitted - by the Holy Spirit - to tamper with teaching on ABC by allowing its use.
Dear friend in Christ,

Actually the Fathers of vatican II and the reigning Pope voted DOWN in an over-whelmimg
majority both Communion in the hand and Communion under both speicies.

That did’t revent A great many American Bishops, priest and Religious from imposing there own Theology.

They were granted Indults AFTER the fact, that these errant practice had already been forced as “common practice.”

And without doubt, this an issue of how ones Faith is Practiced.

Popes JP II and Benedict have been trying to “right” the ship ever sense.

Love and prayers,
 
It’s not my dogma, it’s the Church’s. In this thread and the lay ministers one you completely ignore history, philosophy and dogma by incessantly chanting: “it’s in the GIRM! It’s in the GIRM!” What you are avoiding is how it got there and whether it should come out.
I’m not a fan of “CITH” for a variety of reasons, but I don’t happen to have a copy of the editio typica of the OF missal (i.e., the authentic Latin version for universal use in the Roman Rite and not the US-vernacular “GIRM” – I know what’s in there and could care less about it). After all the back-and-forth in this thread, I’d be curious to know what the editio typica has to say about the matter.
40.png
Ockham:
What is your agenda in this forum?
Excellent question. 👍
 
You can learn about the Catholic faith without debating liturgical abuses. I suspect ulterior motives which shouldn’t take long to reveal.
 
Dear PJM,
I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post in #311.

I hope that you will bear with me just one more time, because I just want to explain what really is my thinking in this matter.

The Church is the family of God. We have Jesus as the invisible Head and the Holy Father as the visible Head. We have a hierarchical Church. Jesus created it that way. The Bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome are the leaders. I am going to use the analogy of the family. I apologize in advance because as with all analogies, they all fall short in some aspects. The Holy Father and the Bishops are the parents of this family. That is why we call the Holy Father, Father. We, as the laity, are the children of the family.

In our family, I being the wife, try to defer to my husband. My husband, being the Godly man that he is, usually never imposes his will on me. In other words, he never says to me,“It is this way because that is how I see it, and I am the husband, no discussion.” Rather, by being patient with me, explaining to me his point of view, and hearing my point of view etc. I will have to say that usually we come to agreement in almost all matters. And usually, our differences in point of view are settled lovingly, privately and with little disturbance to the household. I’m not saying that it always happens this way because we are both human and we err. 🙂

Now our children, having been raised in our household, know that this is how it works. If dad has one idea and mom has another opinion, they know** never** ever to even try to
side with one over the other or worse yet to set one in opposition to the other. They know by experience, that even a hint of this will immediately bond Dad and Mom together in stern disapproval of any dishonor that the children do to either parent.

My point is this. If you(I assume you are part of the laity) or I, as the laity, or kids in the family, went to the Holy Father and pointed out that the Bishops of so and so Conference
are not honoring what he said, what do you think he would say to us? The feeling that I have is that the Holy Father would say, “Listen to your Bishop.” Why? Because the Holy Father is a good head of his household. He would not encourage his children in opposition to their parent. Then, I would imagine, and hope and pray, that he, himself, the Holy Father, would approach his brother bishops, in private, and ask them for their obedience in the matter so as to prevent further disruption to the household.

No matter how correct one child is and how incorrect another child is, the disagreement and division in a household can never be settled until the parents speak with one voice.
The disagreement we have with the manner of receiving Jesus, will never be fully settled until the Holy Father, and the Bishops speak **very clearly **with one voice. Until then, it is our duty as children to pray earnestly for them, that guided by the Holy Spirit, they will speak as one!
Then it will be our duty to accept what they say, in obedience, as children to their parents.

God Bless!
To Jesus, through Mary
 
Tell me, what inspired man to decide that Our Lord no longer needs that respect?
Who said He didn’t? Everyone is accountable for such respect. However I feel my respect for the Lord will be rewarded if it comes from me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top