Communion in the Hand?

[malphono]

I bet you wouldn’t have been so terribly unhappy if the ‘exception’ had become the ‘rule’, or if there had been ‘many many indults’ when it was the TLM that was the ‘exception’ that needed permissions.

What’s wrong with having two (count 'em - two - what an ungodly proliferation!) of options as far as reception of Communion goes.

That wasn’t the point, Lily. I was simply making a general comment. I’m surprised you took it the way you did. Oh well …

 

[LilyM]

Or in other words: if things are bad, why aren’t they worse? If things aren’t worse, then they must be ok?

" … artificial contraception and abortion not permitted? Remarriage upon divorce? Female ordination?"

Too soon. Not yet, not yet. It’s hard to undo 1950 years in fifty.

Maybe never, if the resurgence of the TLM comes to fruition, and Pope Benedict has his way. Already the wolves howl and all he has done is state orthodoxy and invite our estranged brothers back home.

May his enemies be confounded and Christ open their eyes to the Truth.

In other words uou need to think about why NOT yet - and why so pointedly ‘YES’ to change on the issue of communion in the hand and so pointedly ‘NO’ on these other issues when there was every bit as much, and way more (from a secular, and even a church political, point of view) reason to permit them.

You’re wrong - it’s incredibly easy to undo 1950 years in 50 - it only took about 25 years for the secular legal system to permit abortion and make divorce incredibly easy. So ‘not yet’ is no explanation at all.

 

[LilyM]

That wasn’t the point, Lily. I was simply making a general comment. I’m surprised you took it the way you did. Oh well …

It wasn’t really directed at you in particular.

 

[PJM]

=LilyM;5000890]Rot. If disobedience were a genuine factor then why are artificial contraception and abortion not permitted? Remarriage upon divorce? Female ordination? For sure these all have been, or are currently, much more popular forms of disobedience than CITH ever was, and much more militantly advocated, no?

Perhaps they are not as you say “permitted”, BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS:

Are they being taught as being Mortal sins? (not is this the position of the RCC… BUT are they being actively and agressively taught?

Half of all catholic marriages end in divorce

52% of Catholic help’d Presedent Oboma get ellected,

Mass attendance has dropped from about 70% in 1965 to the present 23%

Only about 10% of Catholics still go to Confession

Seminaries continue to be closed,

Catholic shhools continue to close

Parish after Parish are being shuttered.

So friend please, point out the good.

When is the last time you heard (not counting EWTN) a homily on conterception, abortion, marriage, Confession???

And finaly friend, basic Moral Theology teaches “two wrongs can never make a right”… and that that “one MAY NEVER do an evil to try to accomplish a good.”

Love and prayers ny catholic friend!

 

[Shin]

Rot. If disobedience were a genuine factor then why are artificial contraception and abortion not permitted? Remarriage upon divorce? Female ordination? For sure these all have been, or are currently, much more popular forms of disobedience than CITH ever was, and much more militantly advocated, no?

Difference between discipline and doctrine, and how much they can get away with?

But no, all the things you have stated here -are- permitted, and ongoing in many parishes throughout the United States. On the books they are not permitted – in practice they are, and we have Bishops’ Conferences, professors, nuns, etc. pushing for their full public acceptance.

I.E. Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics, female deacons (not ordained perhaps first, but then ordained), the female priests, and before that female everything that can possibly be which before was restricted by tradition, contraception in cases of AIDs, next full contraception, NFP practiced contraceptively, etc…

In other words everything is right up against the last barriers, having overwhelmed all the earlier sandbags, and overflowing.

These things all resulted to the complete lack of respect for Catholic discipline and tradition evidenced in recent years, wherein too huge changes have been made too quickly, against the timeless teachings of the Church that one does not change tradition gigantically, but always weighs the good against the evils that result from changes – a slacking in discipline always results from** any change** in practice, and so the good must outweigh the evil, and the changes are to be approached prudently, not wholesale.

Catholic culture and tradition underwent wholesale destruction in the past few decades. So naturally there are problems with -all- of the changes that have been made. It is **not **as if they were made infallibly, far from it, changes that are the worst thing that could happen for the times can and do happen.

And when this happens we look to the timeless tradition and the law of God written in the heart, we look to the saints and the greatest and lengthiest practices.

 

[Layman]

" … artificial contraception and abortion not permitted? Remarriage upon divorce? Female ordination?"

Fifty years is a long time in the life of a man, but a short time in the life of the Church. If a Bishops Conference came out and said straight out these things were OK thirty years ago, there would have been uproar. Even uneducated people could have pointed out the difference between current doctrine and the above.

But if a cleric here and a cleric there looks the other way, or gives approval, or so as not to alienate progressive parishioners doesn’t mention that they are utterly wrong we might be surprised at what the Church could look like in another fifty years.

Same as how we’ve come to have hatless women in the sanctuary, EMCs and CITH. If they’d been introduced straight-off in 1969 there’d have been uproar. The locals would have thought the Church had gone mad.

It seems to start, like secular fads, in California or Holland and then spread.

I doubt it will go that far. In the end, people, individually and collectively, get tired of their own nonsense. They look for something greater than themselves. The Church, via rigid orthodoxy and the TLM, will be available when that occurs.

'Though if the current trend in laxity and self-satisfaction continues, they might have to travel a bit to find it.

 

[savienu]

Well, genuflecting in front of the Tabernacle has ALWAYS been optional, yet it’s also an important sign of reverence

Since when has genuflecting in front of the tabernacle been OPTIONAL? Even in my poor excuse for catholic schooling, we were told we MUST do that.

 

[savienu]

Only relevant if I didn’t bend the knee - which I and all Catholics in my diocese who are capable do, I can assure you - at the Eucharistic prayer.

Do you genuflect where you are supposed to during the Creed? I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen anyone at the NO do that…

 

[Ockham]

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/12/kneeling-for-communion-and-communion-on.html

[La Razón:] Nevertheless, Benedict XVI has reiterated in some instances the propriety of receiving communion kneeling and in the mouth. Is it something important, or is it a mere matter of form?

[Cañizares:] - No, it is not just a matter of form. What does it mean to receive communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What dies it mean to kneel during the consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him, and we feel speechless, dumbfounded, before the wondrousness, his goodness, and his mercy. That is why it is not the same to place the hand, and to receive communion in any fashion, than doing it in a respectful way; it is not the same to receive communion kneeling or standing up, because all these signs indicate a profound meaning. What we have to grasp is that profound attitude of the man who prostrates himself before God, and that is what the Pope wants.

 

[Ockham]

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So while traditionalist Catholics have been ignored and berated for years, it finally turns out that they’ve been right all along - at least on this issue.

It’s been a long time coming. Once again the Vatican points us back to our historic traditions. We Catholics need to start acting like Catholics again. As the new prefect points out; standing or kneeling for communion is not the same, and it is not just a matter of form. That’s why Protestants don’t do it. You’ll notice that Protestants don’t kneel at the consecration, when they visit a Catholic mass, simply because they don’t believe in the real presence. They know EXACTLY what kneeling means. To kneel is to show adoration. That’s why they don’t do it. Funny how so many Catholics seem to have forgotten this when it comes time to receive the blessed sacrament.

So the question is what to do now. Should Catholics take it upon themselves to begin kneeling and receiving on the tongue during the Ordinary Form liturgy, or should they wait for the USCCB to come out with some kind of statement on the matter. If the latter, we may be waiting for a hundred years. Maybe it’s time to just do what we know is right, and what the Vatican confirms is right. Based on papal liturgies, and now these words from the CDW prefect, the official position of the Vatican is that Catholics should kneel and receive communion on the tongue. While the official position of the USCCB is that Catholics should stand and receive communion on the hand. So which is it? Do we obey the Vatican or the USCCB? After all is said and done, that’s what it comes down to. We must chose between the USCCB, which has no real governing authority, or the Vatican, which is the apostolic See of Peter. What’s it going to be? Peter or the USCCB? I know my position. ‘The Catholic Knight’ will be kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue no matter what mass I’m attending. The only exception to that would be if kneeling might hold up the line or cause some kind of disturbance. In which case I will at least receive the sacrament on the tongue while standing, as they do in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.

The point is we’ve got to take a stand somewhere - (no pun intended). If we don’t boldly show our reverence for the eucharistic Lord at mass, when shall we do it? Now I’m not talking about making a scene. The mass should never be a place for calling attention to one’s self, but at the same time, it should not be a place for the disciples of modernism to strip our faith of everything we hold dear. Now is as good a time as any to do something about it, and the Vatican has affirmed our right to do it. So let’s do it in a spirit of true reverence for our eucharistic Lord, and with no spite or malice toward anyone. Let’s all agree to boycott the hand for starters. No more communion in the hand. From now on communion on the tongue in all circumstances. Then when the opportunity presents itself, and doing so will not cause a disruption of any kind, we kneel down to receive the Lord. Is there anybody out there with me on this?

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/12/vatican-prefect-on-kneeling-for.html

 

[Shin]

I receive on the tongue, kneeling. There is no provision made for kneeling for Communion at the parish I go to, so I simply get in line with everyone else, and when I reach the priest, instead of genuflecting, I go to both knees.

It is simple and easy to do, just like genuflecting is. And I promptly rise again. It does not take any significant amount of time, I do not delay the Communion line. Moreover, since Communion under both kinds is normally given, there is no concern about delays.

But I would pay no attention to a complainer about such regardless, any more than I would pay to any devilish priests I meet when away from my home parish who try to make kneeling difficult. I know the extent of their authority where it begins – and where it ends.

 

[savienu]

I receive on the tongue, kneeling. There is no provision made for kneeling for Communion at the parish I go to, so I simply get in line with everyone else, and when I reach the priest, instead of genuflecting, I go to both knees.

It is simple and easy to do, just like genuflecting is. And I promptly rise again. It does not take any significant amount of time, I do not delay the Communion line. Moreover, since Communion under both kinds is normally given, there is no concern about delays.

But I would pay no attention to a complainer about such regardless, any more than I would pay to any devilish priests I meet when away from my home parish who try to make kneeling difficult. I know the extent of their authority where it begins – and where it ends.

I had a priest roll his eyes at me and practically throw our Lord into my mouth. But, he didn’t deny me communion at least. And you better believe the Bishop received a phone call about it afterwards.

 

[Shin]

I had a priest roll his eyes at me and practically throw our Lord into my mouth. But, he didn’t deny me communion at least. And you better believe the Bishop received a phone call about it afterwards.

Shameful isn’t it? I’m glad you called. Deo gratias.

 

[Auntie_M]

I realize there is nothing that will make anyone believe anything they refuse to believe. Most of you are young and have no trouble kneeling and getting up again. Since I am much older, I DO have trouble with this. I guess since I cannot kneel and receive, then I shall go straight to … by your standards. Yes?

I really have a terrible time accepting that traditionalist judge everyone who doesn’t “follow” the rules the way they see them. I do receive on the tongue unless I am very sick with a cold, but I am standing, not out of irreverence (as my Lord truly knows) but out of inability to kneel and get back up. When you younger ones get my age, you’ll understand. I do hope no one will tell you, you’re being disrespectful when that time comes…

No one knows what goes through another’s mind while receiving and I really do feel judging others of not be reverent, is too much like sinning. We are told by our Lord, judge not, lest you be judged. If more time was spent on worshiping our Lord and not on trying to see who is “doing it wrong”, this would be a much better world.

 

[Shin]

I realize there is nothing that will make anyone believe anything they refuse to believe. Most of you are young and have no trouble kneeling and getting up again. Since I am much older, I DO have trouble with this. I guess since I cannot kneel and receive, then I shall go straight to … by your standards. Yes?

Honestly, why do you make a silly statement like this? Do you do it on purpose?

There are standards and there are exceptions for people who are handicapped and unable to meet them. To use those exceptions to do away with standards, is from Hell, not from Heaven.

Who said if you -can’t- kneel it’s a sin? No one. So do not -sin- by impugning the characters of others about this matter, and their motivations. Thank you.

 

[Layman]

What he said. ^^^

If we had proper communion rails and kneelers at them someone a little infirm could use them to push themselves up.

Also, to suffer a bit for Christ’s sake is glorious.

But if y’can’t, y’can’t. No one will or should take issue with that.

 

[Cat]

What he said. ^^^

If we had proper communion rails and kneelers at them someone a little infirm could use them to push themselves up.

Also, to suffer a bit for Christ’s sake is glorious.

But if y’can’t, y’can’t. No one will or should take issue with that.

A “little infirm?”

If to suffer for Christ’s sake is glorious, perhaps all who are offended at Communion in the hand should thank God for the opportunity to suffer for His glory.

 

[keyboardrob]

I prefer to kneel when receiving the Eucharistic Lord. Others prefer to receive in the hand instead of the tongue.

I would remind everyone that it’s the “inner reception” of the Eucharist that counts- not our posture in reception of Communion, or preference between tongue or hand. If you haven’t prepared yourself spiritually, the manner of reception matters not at all.

I’d also remind you that in some Biblical translations and in the ancient scrolls, it is recorded that the apostles are reported as RECLINING at the last Supper when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I’m certain most of you are familiar with the anceint hymn/chant “Pange Lingua”. Depending on your view of the Latin translation, the apostles may have been SEATED. In either case, I think we can all agree that the apostles reeived the bread in their hands,not on the tongue- and certainly they weren’t kneeling. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that there was no lack of reverence (Judas excepted) for the Lord was doing that first Holy Thursday.

Bearing these things in mind, does anyone REALLY think it makes a difference how we receive as long as we are inwardly prepared for the Sacrament?>

Pax tecum,
Rob

 

[savienu]

I prefer to kneel when receiving the Eucharistic Lord. Others prefer to receive in the hand instead of the tongue.

I would remind everyone that it’s the “inner reception” of the Eucharist that counts- not our posture in reception of Communion, or preference between tongue or hand. If you haven’t prepared yourself spiritually, the manner of reception matters not at all.

I’d also remind you that in some Biblical translations and in the ancient scrolls, it is recorded that the apostles are reported as RECLINING at the last Supper when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I’m certain most of you are familiar with the anceint hymn/chant “Pange Lingua”. Depending on your view of the Latin translation, the apostles may have been SEATED. In either case, I think we can all agree that the apostles reeived the bread in their hands,not on the tongue- and certainly they weren’t kneeling. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that there was no lack of reverence (Judas excepted) for the Lord was doing that first Holy Thursday.

Bearing these things in mind, does anyone REALLY think it makes a difference how we receive as long as we are inwardly prepared for the Sacrament?>

Pax tecum,
Rob

Yes, because we are not apostles, nor are we bishops, nor we priests. People keep making this “the apostles received in their hands” argument as though it is comparable to the average joe or jane walking up to the altar, hands out, chomping on our Lord, and half the time, NOT EVEN crossing oneself afterwards. Consecrated hands can touch the body of our Lord, and the apostles certainly had consecrated hands, inner disposition aside. EVEN JUDAS HAD CONSECRATED HANDS.

 

[Layman]

To: Cat.

Yes, a little infirm. It’s up to you. If you’re crippled, then no one can reasonably expect you to kneel. If you can manage it at all, then why not?

*“If to suffer for Christ’s sake is glorious” *

If? It most certainly is. Read, for example, about the life of St. Padre Pio. He wanted to suffer, and this was given to him as a boon. It was a privilege. He wasn’t required to do it. Nor are we.

You can offer your suffering to Christ to shorten the stay of the Holy Souls in purgatory, for example. Or to help convert sinners. Hence the phrase “offering it up”. Catholicism 101.

“… perhaps all who are offended at Communion in the hand should thank God for the opportunity to suffer for His glory.”

A smart remark. Thank God for what one perceives as others impiety? That would be perverse, unChristian, if not blasphemous.

To: keyboardrob. Please read previous posts. This argument has already been covered.

In my opinion, speculation about what Christ and the apostles did or did not do at the Last Supper misses the point.

1. We don’t know for certain all the details.
2. As a previous poster has mentioned, the Last Supper happened before the cruxificion; our rite is also a re-enactment of that.
3. The apostles were his most intimate human companions; I don’t think we’re on the same level.
4. What you do outwardly affects your inner condition e.g. Put a uniform on a meek man and it helps him become a soldier. Kneel and receive on the tongue and it helps your humility and shows respect to our King (“Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”)
5. Liturgical archaelogy of practices dropped hundreds of years ago repudiates our past. I think it wastes time. It says: We know better than our forebears. let’s try this …!

Hence now the increased opportunity for the impious, the ignorant and the outright Satanic to palm the host and mess about with it.

Plus the disrespect handling the Host must increase; if I can touch it, how special is it?

My previous question remains unanswered:

**If you have the option to receive Communion is a very humble way: kneeling, on the tongue, why would you persist, even insist, on taking it standing, in the hand? **(infirmities aside).