J
Jacafamala
Guest
To receive Jesus on the tongue is safest, simplest and most pure. There is far less chance of accidents or abuse.
- Status
O
Ockham
Guest
Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican’s liturgist.
While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more traditional practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.
Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights “the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily,” he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.
Pastorally speaking, he said “it is urgent to highlight and recover” these aspects of the sacredness and mystery of the Eucharist in modern times.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican’s liturgist.
While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more traditional practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.
Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights “the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily,” he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.
Pastorally speaking, he said “it is urgent to highlight and recover” these aspects of the sacredness and mystery of the Eucharist in modern times.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Just because Rome allows something doesn’t make it equivalent. To argue otherwise is just silly, but how many times and on how many issues have we had to argue that? Why? Because of a false sense of obedience which equates permission during a time of lax ecclesiastical discipline with “it must be just as good.”
Nice posting. Thanks.
O
Ockham
Guest
This quote is off-topic but applies to our discussion. The past forty years have been a whirl wind in terms of change, something definitely un-Catholic.
“November showed us that 40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected. Or to put it more discreetly, the November elections confirmed a trend, rather than created a new moment, in American culture.” Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15439
The Bishop is saying complacency has contributed to society’s moral decline. Taking his message as inspiration in the restoration of our true heritage we need to stop this Protestant practice of receiving Communion in hand while standing. Next we need to get the priest facing God again. Brick by brick.
“November showed us that 40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected. Or to put it more discreetly, the November elections confirmed a trend, rather than created a new moment, in American culture.” Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15439
The Bishop is saying complacency has contributed to society’s moral decline. Taking his message as inspiration in the restoration of our true heritage we need to stop this Protestant practice of receiving Communion in hand while standing. Next we need to get the priest facing God again. Brick by brick.
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
It doesn’t change the fact that communion in the hand is an indult, is less reverent and not preferred by the Pope.
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
E
elts1956
Guest
:shrug:QUOTE=Iowa Mike;4964428]I’m not on this forum to argue. You can say that the Pope thinks communion in the hand is OK…if he really thought so he would be doing so. He is not. Instead, as the Christ’s representative on earth, he has chosen to give communion on the tongue. You can dismiss this if you want but it is profound.
Your statement that you don’t think I am emotional about this issue is not factual. I would describe my objection to the treatment of Our Lord’s Divine Body, Blook, Soul and Divinity as passionate not emotional. I have seen what I have seen, my supporting citations are sound and, as a result, my arguments are sound. You don’t want to argue reverence and it is a good thing you don’t because there is no way in the world you can succeed with the position that communion in the hand is as reverent as communion on the tongue.
Communion in the hand is an indult. It was first done in the Netherlands (where Iived for a number of years). I was done in total disobediance from the norm. It spread first to the surrounding countries and finally to the U.S. The Church, in my humble opinion, caved in and made it an indult; one the Holy Father chooses not to follow.
With respect to masses in costume, check out the Barney Mass in California or the Holloween mass also in California. These aren’t fabrications and you can find them on YouTube. There is all manner of irreverenct liturgical innovations that found their way into the Novus Ordo…dancing, plays, horrible music, etc. The Novus Ordo could be very reverent but it isn’t in today’s form. I’ve outline many personally observed irreverent practices today in the Novus Order…I’ve seen these practices repeated in every NO mass I have attended, in one degree or another. You have seen none. Maybe that’s and area we should explore. You are welcome to come to Mass in my Parish. You will see NO irreverence.
I respectfully disagree that the issue of communion in the hand is selft correcting. As long as liberal lay elements hold sway over liturgy, this will continue to be a problem and probably get worse.
I’ve been all over the world to Novus Ordo masses…and the irreverence is everywhere. Are their reverent Catholics at these services, of course. Most feel helpless to make changes.
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
Instead, as the Christ’s representative on earth, he has chosen to give communion on the tongue.
Say what you will, in the hand, or on the tongue, the Pope has not yet said we must receive ONLY on the tongue. Until he does, I think people will continue as they have been doing since 1963, hopefully with reverence. At my parish church everyone but me receives in the hand. I receive on the tongue. Don’t know if I could go back to the hand, or not. Right now, it is a personal preference as to how the Host is received and everyone can argue until they are blue in the face as to which is more reverent. We may imitate the Pope’s preference if we wish, but UNTIL AND IF, he says in the hand is a no no, people are free to choose.
Your statement that you don’t think I am emotional about this issue is not factual. I would describe my objection to the treatment of Our Lord’s Divine Body, Blook, Soul and Divinity as passionate not emotional. I have seen what I have seen, my supporting citations are sound and, as a result, my arguments are sound. You don’t want to argue reverence and it is a good thing you don’t because there is no way in the world you can succeed with the position that communion in the hand is as reverent as communion on the tongue.
Communion in the hand is an indult. It was first done in the Netherlands (where Iived for a number of years). I was done in total disobediance from the norm. It spread first to the surrounding countries and finally to the U.S. The Church, in my humble opinion, caved in and made it an indult; one the Holy Father chooses not to follow.
With respect to masses in costume, check out the Barney Mass in California or the Holloween mass also in California. These aren’t fabrications and you can find them on YouTube. There is all manner of irreverenct liturgical innovations that found their way into the Novus Ordo…dancing, plays, horrible music, etc. The Novus Ordo could be very reverent but it isn’t in today’s form. I’ve outline many personally observed irreverent practices today in the Novus Order…I’ve seen these practices repeated in every NO mass I have attended, in one degree or another. You have seen none. Maybe that’s and area we should explore. You are welcome to come to Mass in my Parish. You will see NO irreverence.
I respectfully disagree that the issue of communion in the hand is selft correcting. As long as liberal lay elements hold sway over liturgy, this will continue to be a problem and probably get worse.
I’ve been all over the world to Novus Ordo masses…and the irreverence is everywhere. Are their reverent Catholics at these services, of course. Most feel helpless to make changes.
God Bless,
Iowa Mike
Instead, as the Christ’s representative on earth, he has chosen to give communion on the tongue.
Say what you will, in the hand, or on the tongue, the Pope has not yet said we must receive ONLY on the tongue. Until he does, I think people will continue as they have been doing since 1963, hopefully with reverence. At my parish church everyone but me receives in the hand. I receive on the tongue. Don’t know if I could go back to the hand, or not. Right now, it is a personal preference as to how the Host is received and everyone can argue until they are blue in the face as to which is more reverent. We may imitate the Pope’s preference if we wish, but UNTIL AND IF, he says in the hand is a no no, people are free to choose.
F
Frosty
Guest
While those people receiving the Eucharist from Pope Benedict personally now do so kneeling and on the tongue, he doesn’t seem to have any problem with allowing the rest of the faithful at his Masses to receive in the hand if they wish. He has said that he thinks that reception in the hand is a perfectly legitimate way of receiving Communion.
I prefer to receive on the tongue but only because that is the way I was brought up and I am a creature of habit. These arguments are fruitless, as you said elts. All they do is lead to more discord within the Church. We have a choice at this point in time, so why can’t everyone just accept that. During this time of Lent surely we would all be better off if we contemplated the Cross and recognized in it the ugliness of our sins?
A
albertziggy
Guest
Hi:
Just want to know: I read that self-communion is forbidden. However, this is often practiced in private gatherings such as retreats. Now I would want to know if there are any Church Documents that explicitly mention this, or if there are exceptions to the rule, which is very common nowadays. Also, if this only rule only applies to a particular country.
Thanks. Just confused. That’s all!
Just want to know: I read that self-communion is forbidden. However, this is often practiced in private gatherings such as retreats. Now I would want to know if there are any Church Documents that explicitly mention this, or if there are exceptions to the rule, which is very common nowadays. Also, if this only rule only applies to a particular country.
Thanks. Just confused. That’s all!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
If it’s in the GIRM (which is part of the universal law of the Church) how can it be an indult? My understanding is that an indult is a special favor, that’s an exception to or special case of a law, granted for a determinate period of time.
The option to receive communion in the hand is in Church Law, not a specific exemption or exception to Church law.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
You are correct, self-communication is not allowed (except of course by the priest) as the GIRM instructs:Hi:
Just want to know: I read that self-communion is forbidden. However, this is often practiced in private gatherings such as retreats. Now I would want to know if there are any Church Documents that explicitly mention this, or if there are exceptions to the rule, which is very common nowadays. Also, if this only rule only applies to a particular country.
Thanks. Just confused. That’s all!
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect1a
O
Ockham
Guest
Here’s the contradiction. Communion in hand is by self - your hand to your mouth.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No that’s not a contradiction. Read the para from the GIRM I posted previously (160). The GIRM allows communion in the hand while at the same time barring self-communication of the faithful. So obviously there’s no contradiction in the Church’s mind. Or are you saying the Church is contradicting Herself?
O
Ockham
Guest
You don’t disprove a contradiction by appealing to authority. Is it a contradiction or not? Yes or no?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Guys, self communion is distributing Holy Communion from the ciborium to yourself.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No.
I already said that.
Do you think it’s a contradiction? That’s what I asked in my previous post. I don’t think you answered that after reading the GIRM citation. If you think it’s a contradiction, then are you saying the Church is contradicting Herself? If so then I guess we are free to pick and choose what we want to believe, if we can’t trust the Church.
O
Ockham
Guest
Bishops once sold indulgences. Did that make it right? If you could go back in history and convince them otherwise ahead of Luther would you do it? Bishops in Holland started this Communion in hand craze just as the Protestants do. Does that make it right?
When you receive Communion by your own hand it is self-administered. When unconsecrated hands touch the body of Christ it destroys all the reverence shown by the priest in the sacrament and Mass itself. Why does the priest wash away his iniquities in the Lavabo if you (or the EMHC) don’t? Why do you allow particles of Christ to remain on the receipient’s hand?
This is not a matter of dogma, thus not infallible. It is a recent trend along with many others that have contributed to a diminished belief in transubstantiation and perhaps a total loss of faith when combined with other ‘reforms’.
When you receive Communion by your own hand it is self-administered. When unconsecrated hands touch the body of Christ it destroys all the reverence shown by the priest in the sacrament and Mass itself. Why does the priest wash away his iniquities in the Lavabo if you (or the EMHC) don’t? Why do you allow particles of Christ to remain on the receipient’s hand?
This is not a matter of dogma, thus not infallible. It is a recent trend along with many others that have contributed to a diminished belief in transubstantiation and perhaps a total loss of faith when combined with other ‘reforms’.
O
Ockham
Guest
The Reformation’s Influence
During the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther stated his opposition to the Catholic practice of celebrating the Eucharist by saying, “The mass is a bad thing; God is opposed to it; it ought to be abolished; and I would that throughout the whole world it were replaced by the supper of the gospel.”[96] He also, though, followed that with counsel as to how to and how not to accomplish that end[97]. During that same time, other reformers also voiced their similar theological opposition[98], though their reforms were slow in overcoming the long held traditions.
The effects of the reformed thinking have been an ongoing phenomena, even resulting in creating a major point of controversy among Roman Catholics concerning the Mass since Vatican II. That is,“A 1992 Gallup poll showed that 70 % of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass [New Order of the Mass] do not believe they are receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, at Holy Communion. That is to say, only 30% believe in the Real Presence.”[99] [brackects added]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
During the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther stated his opposition to the Catholic practice of celebrating the Eucharist by saying, “The mass is a bad thing; God is opposed to it; it ought to be abolished; and I would that throughout the whole world it were replaced by the supper of the gospel.”[96] He also, though, followed that with counsel as to how to and how not to accomplish that end[97]. During that same time, other reformers also voiced their similar theological opposition[98], though their reforms were slow in overcoming the long held traditions.
The effects of the reformed thinking have been an ongoing phenomena, even resulting in creating a major point of controversy among Roman Catholics concerning the Mass since Vatican II. That is,“A 1992 Gallup poll showed that 70 % of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass [New Order of the Mass] do not believe they are receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, at Holy Communion. That is to say, only 30% believe in the Real Presence.”[99] [brackects added]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Ockam, I agree with you. But, what’s an NO parishioner to do? With no altar railing to kneel on, the (almost always shorter) priest or EMHC is reaching up to my tongue and that is kinda gross. I can’t kneel, because the Bishops have told us that we should bow deeply and then receive standing. And, I don’t want to call attention to myself and disrupt the line.
Practical advice. I need practical advice.
O
Ockham
Guest
Communion in the Hand
. . . Why?
JOHN VENNARI
“Out of reverence towards this Sacrament,
nothing touches It but what is consecrated”
St. Thomas Aquinas
Have you noticed a change in the way the Catholic Church administers Holy Communion from the way it once was?
Do you remember when Catholics always knelt for Holy Communion?
Do you remember when Catholics received Holy Communion on the tongue only?
Do you remember when only the priest administered Holy Communion?
Do you remember our priests and sisters teaching us it was sacrilegious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host?
Do you remember when tabernacles were always in the centre of the altar as the primary focal point?
Why has kneeling for Holy Communion disappeared?
Why are tabernacles disappearing from the centre of the churches and placed on the side?
Why are people receiving Communion in the hand?
Why are there lay-ministers of the Eucharist?
Why were these things changed?
If things were changed for the sake of “modern times” and “modern man”, has it resulted in record crowds of “modern men” flocking into our churches to pray and receive the Sacraments?
Do we have record turnouts in our seminaries, monasteries and convents?
Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of vocations in the Church?
Was there a “vocation crisis” before these essential and fundamental things were changed?
In the Rubrics of the Old Rite of Mass, why was there such precaution taken against the desecration of the Sacred Species?
Why did the priest scrape the corporal with the paten so as not to allow even the slightest minute particle to fall to the ground and be desecrated?
Why did these rubrics disappear?
Was there more love and reverence before the “renewal”? Was there more faith in the Real Presence before the “renewal”?
Was there a deeper and greater understanding and appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament as really and truly being the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine?
Were the old rubrics simply “over scrupulous”?
Did the old rubrics and strict laws safeguarding reverence, dignity, and holiness, not express the Catholic Faith regarding the Blessed Sacrament properly?
Do we now understand and believe in it in a different manner, and is this therefore manifested by the actions of first the clergy, and then the laity? Are we afraid to adore the Sacred Host?
Are we ashamed to adore the Sacred Host?
Is it any coincidence that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament began to fade away more and more with the introduction of Communion in the hand, and lay ministers of the Eucharist?
Has Catholic teaching changed regarding Transubstantiation, that is, the changing of the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ during the Sacrifice of the Mass?
If the teaching has not changed, why has attitude, spirit, rubrics, and practice changed?
Where did Communion in the hand come from since it is nowhere proposed or even mentioned in the documents of Vatican II?
Why did it still come about on a worldwide scale even after Pope Paul VI in the 1969 letter to the Bishops, Memoriale Domini stated “This method, ‘on the tongue’ must be retained”?
If it is supposed to be “optional,” why are the little children in most parochial schools taught no other way than receiving in the hand as “this is the way it is done”?
Why is there a new attitude of “anyone can handle It”?
Have we created a “vicious cycle” or a “cause and effect” situation where radical changes are introduced, vocations drop as a result, and then more changes such a “lay ministers of the Eucharist” are introduced appealing to their need because of the “vocation crisis”?
Is it possible there may be forces at work to undermine the priesthood?
Is it possible there may be forces at work to Protestantize the Catholic Church?
Is it possible there may be forces at work to destroy the Catholic Church?
Do Catholic authorities and educators not know that Communion in the hand was condemned by the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D. to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege?
Are Catholic authorities unaware of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teaching that only the consecrated (hands of the priest) should touch the consecrated (Sacred Host)? Summa Pt. III, Q. 82 ART #3.
**Are Church authorities unaware that Protestant denominations beginning with Martin Luther in the 16th century re-introduced Communion in the hand to manifest their belief once and for all that there is no such thing as Transubstantiation and Holy Orders, and the bread used during services is just ordinary bread, and the minister is just an ordinary man with no God-given power to consecrate? **
Are Catholic authorities unaware that during ritualistic Satan worship, there must be a consecrated Host for the diabolic black mass, where It is profaned in the most horrendous and immoral way possible?
Are Catholic authorities unaware that the introduction of Communion in the hand, and the “anyone can handle It” attitude easily accommodates those who wish to acquire It for evil purposes? Do they care?
Is it a manifestation of disrespect or disobedience to present these hard but sober and valid questions?
Or is it a matter of genuine concern to preserve and defend the reverence, dignity, and holiness due to the greatest treasure the Catholic Church possesses, and the greatest gift given us by God: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament?
. . . Why?
JOHN VENNARI
“Out of reverence towards this Sacrament,
nothing touches It but what is consecrated”
St. Thomas Aquinas
Have you noticed a change in the way the Catholic Church administers Holy Communion from the way it once was?
Do you remember when Catholics always knelt for Holy Communion?
Do you remember when Catholics received Holy Communion on the tongue only?
Do you remember when only the priest administered Holy Communion?
Do you remember our priests and sisters teaching us it was sacrilegious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host?
Do you remember when tabernacles were always in the centre of the altar as the primary focal point?
Why has kneeling for Holy Communion disappeared?
Why are tabernacles disappearing from the centre of the churches and placed on the side?
Why are people receiving Communion in the hand?
Why are there lay-ministers of the Eucharist?
Why were these things changed?
If things were changed for the sake of “modern times” and “modern man”, has it resulted in record crowds of “modern men” flocking into our churches to pray and receive the Sacraments?
Do we have record turnouts in our seminaries, monasteries and convents?
Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of vocations in the Church?
Was there a “vocation crisis” before these essential and fundamental things were changed?
In the Rubrics of the Old Rite of Mass, why was there such precaution taken against the desecration of the Sacred Species?
Why did the priest scrape the corporal with the paten so as not to allow even the slightest minute particle to fall to the ground and be desecrated?
Why did these rubrics disappear?
Was there more love and reverence before the “renewal”? Was there more faith in the Real Presence before the “renewal”?
Was there a deeper and greater understanding and appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament as really and truly being the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine?
Were the old rubrics simply “over scrupulous”?
Did the old rubrics and strict laws safeguarding reverence, dignity, and holiness, not express the Catholic Faith regarding the Blessed Sacrament properly?
Do we now understand and believe in it in a different manner, and is this therefore manifested by the actions of first the clergy, and then the laity? Are we afraid to adore the Sacred Host?
Are we ashamed to adore the Sacred Host?
Is it any coincidence that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament began to fade away more and more with the introduction of Communion in the hand, and lay ministers of the Eucharist?
Has Catholic teaching changed regarding Transubstantiation, that is, the changing of the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ during the Sacrifice of the Mass?
If the teaching has not changed, why has attitude, spirit, rubrics, and practice changed?
Where did Communion in the hand come from since it is nowhere proposed or even mentioned in the documents of Vatican II?
Why did it still come about on a worldwide scale even after Pope Paul VI in the 1969 letter to the Bishops, Memoriale Domini stated “This method, ‘on the tongue’ must be retained”?
If it is supposed to be “optional,” why are the little children in most parochial schools taught no other way than receiving in the hand as “this is the way it is done”?
Why is there a new attitude of “anyone can handle It”?
Have we created a “vicious cycle” or a “cause and effect” situation where radical changes are introduced, vocations drop as a result, and then more changes such a “lay ministers of the Eucharist” are introduced appealing to their need because of the “vocation crisis”?
Is it possible there may be forces at work to undermine the priesthood?
Is it possible there may be forces at work to Protestantize the Catholic Church?
Is it possible there may be forces at work to destroy the Catholic Church?
Do Catholic authorities and educators not know that Communion in the hand was condemned by the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D. to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege?
Are Catholic authorities unaware of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ teaching that only the consecrated (hands of the priest) should touch the consecrated (Sacred Host)? Summa Pt. III, Q. 82 ART #3.
**Are Church authorities unaware that Protestant denominations beginning with Martin Luther in the 16th century re-introduced Communion in the hand to manifest their belief once and for all that there is no such thing as Transubstantiation and Holy Orders, and the bread used during services is just ordinary bread, and the minister is just an ordinary man with no God-given power to consecrate? **
Are Catholic authorities unaware that during ritualistic Satan worship, there must be a consecrated Host for the diabolic black mass, where It is profaned in the most horrendous and immoral way possible?
Are Catholic authorities unaware that the introduction of Communion in the hand, and the “anyone can handle It” attitude easily accommodates those who wish to acquire It for evil purposes? Do they care?
Is it a manifestation of disrespect or disobedience to present these hard but sober and valid questions?
Or is it a matter of genuine concern to preserve and defend the reverence, dignity, and holiness due to the greatest treasure the Catholic Church possesses, and the greatest gift given us by God: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament?
- Christian Order, December 1998, pages 587-589, used with kind permission.
O
Ockham
Guest
I empathize with you Paul as I’m six foot and worried one of these days a shorter priest is going to fumble. It’s not a nice situation we are in these days. Hopefully the history books will look back at these post-Vatican II years as some chaotic mess that took awhile and much difficulty to correct. It’s easier to dumb down than to smarten up so the road ahead will be arduous indeed.
Without an EF Mass you are forced into one of three options: receive in hand like the Protestants do, on tongue while standing, or take a knee. This does draw attention to yourself, but ask yourself if that’s such a bad thing. Perhaps you will lead by example and soon after everyone will choose to receive the Lord while showing this respect.
When Christ died for our sins and instituted the Sacrament, he was stripped naked, nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns on his sacred head. If He was willing to bring that kind of attention on Himself for us, then isn’t bending a knee to receive Him the least we can do?
- Status