Communion in the Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
I have no problem with what Trent teaches. I may or may not agree with what the author you cited thinks.
Click to expand...
I guess you’ll just have to go to the original documents of the Council of Trent and read them from the Latin. After all, the theologian or whomever transcribed them into English may have made a mistake!!!:eek: Have a good day. 😃
 
Layman said:
To: LilyM.

As I understand it, for a consecration to be valid, the priest has to intend it to be so at that time. That’s all. Or he could just nick ones consecrated by a fellow priest in the parish. And give them freely. I vaguely recall reading about Satanists having a priest on tap, and a rich and powerful one could find a ‘fallen’ priest in due course; ‘like calls to like’.

A rich man can also hire a priest as his personal chaplain, for his personal chapel, and take it from there.

Just to continue this slightly-strange meander: A priest could believe in Jesus, while believing the Devil is more powerful. Thus his consecration would be valid, wouldn’t it?
Click to expand...
Well, the priest would be a heretic - latate sententiae excommunicated. Would a person who is excomunicate still be able to exercise their priestly faculties? Could Luther have celebrated a valid Eucharist being both heretic and apostate? Does intent merely mean the priest has to want to consecrate, totally regardless of the purposes for which he wants to do so? Or even his own beliefs on the Eucharist (provided he believes in a form of Real Presence)?

If a priest intends to absolve in the sacrament of penance, but intends to impart that absolution to an accomplice of his in a sin against the sixth commandment, then his absolution is invalid. So valid intent is a more complicated beast than it would seem at first blush, and I believe similarly the intent required for consecration might be similarly set at a higher threshold than you think.

Secondly - all your statements go completely to prove my post - COTT didn’t stop or curb Satanic Masses from happening with consecrated hosts, and making it compulsory again wouldn’t stop or curb them either. Why would someone palm a host for such a purpose when there are, as we both seem to agree, many equally easy options. 🤷
 
To: LilyM

**It seems to me you are arguing that because someone could abuse a host despite COTT, therefore CITH is justifiable. **

For me it’s a matter of percentages and probability. More opportunity for abuse likely means more abuse. Not necessarily Satanic, but also, just ignorant or smart-alecky. Bad catechisis (now standard, it seems, in Catholicism) + Easy-going N.O. Masses + CITH = Casual approach to the Host.

In my opinion: COTT: Less opportunity for casual and deliberate sacrilege means less sacrilege. Surely a good thing? Also, it clues communicants into the fact that the Host is special.

An interesting point made by a previous poster: What’s the point of the priest being careful with the Host and washing his hands (which I assume they still do) when communicants can hold it in their hands and don’t have to purify them afterwards?
 
It is really quite the statement to say that the “modernist” don’t appreciate the Host the way the Traditionalists do just because they prefer to take in the hand. I do wish the ones making these statements provide some “proof” of how they know this to be true?

Are you just making an assumption or are there actual people in the congregations telling you all…“I take in the hand because I know it isn’t REALLY Jesus!!!”?

If you have gone to EVERY Catholic in the world and taken some sort of poll on who really thinks it is Jesus or not, then, and only then, you can make this kind of statement.

When you make statements like these, you are judging others without any real proof.

If you judge, then is it ok for others to judge you?🙂

Please, don’t condemn others for having different opinions.
 
Layman said:
To: LilyM

It seems to me you are arguing that because someone could abuse a host despite COTT, therefore CITH is justifiable.

For me it’s a matter of percentages and probability. More opportunity for abuse likely means more abuse. Not necessarily Satanic, but also, just ignorant or smart-alecky. Bad catechisis (now standard, it seems, in Catholicism) + Easy-going N.O. Masses + CITH = Casual approach to the Host.

In my opinion: COTT: Less opportunity for casual and deliberate sacrilege means less sacrilege. Surely a good thing? Also, it clues communicants into the fact that the Host is special.

An interesting point made by a previous poster: What’s the point of the priest being careful with the Host and washing his hands (which I assume they still do) when communicants can hold it in their hands and don’t have to purify them afterwards?
Click to expand...
“More opportunity for abuse equals more abuse” ? Well, what is it when there is more opportunity for judging…does that equal more judging? Bad Catechesis? is that your judgement?

In the hand, in the mouth, either way the host can be taken in a casual manner. IF the one taking the host is casual about their faiths, it really doesn’t matter which way it is taken. then does it? Just because it is taken in the mouth, doesn’t make the one taking any holier. Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF.

Good book to read…“Holier than the Pope” 😃
 
To: Auntie M.

““More opportunity for abuse equals more abuse” ? Well, what is it when there is more opportunity for judging…does that equal more judging? Bad Catechesis? is that your judgement?”

I don’t know what you’re getting at, there. I said “More opportunity for abuse likely means more abuse.”

In the hand, in the mouth, either way the host can be taken in a casual manner. IF the one taking the host is casual about their faiths, it really doesn’t matter which way it is taken. then does it? Just because it is taken in the mouth, doesn’t make the one taking any holier. Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF.

CITH makes it easier to 1) Take the host and abuse it later 2) Let some particles from it fall on the ground 3) Drop it entirely 4) Receive it into a dirty hand, 4) Is outwardly less reverent than receiving kneeling, on the tongue. 5) Is one more novelty in a rite now rife with them.

“Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF”

Where is it in the EF?

Good book to read…“Holier than the Pope”"

Are you being sarcastic here?
 
Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. **By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus. **

At the opening of Vatican II, reformers were all the rage. They were going to lead us out of our Catholic ghettos by altering the liturgy, rewriting the Bible and missals, abandoning the old traditions, making us more ecumenical, and engaging the world. And their legacy?

Four decades of devastation wrought upon the church, and the final disgrace of a hierarchy that lacked the moral courage of the Boy Scouts to keep the perverts out of the seminaries, and throw them out of the rectories and schools of Holy Mother Church.

Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway.

Jones’ statistics tell us the price of appeasement.

This article is taken from townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20021211.shtml

“Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II” (113 pages) by Kenneth C. Jones is available at many bookstores.
 
Layman said:
CITH makes it easier to 3) Drop it entirely
Click to expand...
Actually, I have seen lots of hosts dropped missing someone’s tongue but have never once seen one dropped while distributing to the hand.
  1. Is outwardly less reverent than receiving kneeling, on the tongue.
Click to expand...
In your subjective opinion.
“Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF”
Click to expand...
Where is it in the EF?
Click to expand...
I promise you that before V2, as an altar boy holding the paten under people’s chins, I saw the exact same glazed-over looks on many that I see on many today. Probably not in the current EF because it is not where the “pew potatoes” hang out, but if you were to change back to 100% EF it would be right back there too. And the Masses themselves were full of abuses too, as is attested in several threads on the topic here.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion and preference but please try to get over the idea that people who prefer CITH are some kind of misguided, irreverent rubes and that there is some inherent moral superiority to receiving kneeling and on the tongue.

Peace,
 
Ockham said:
Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. **By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus. **

At the opening of Vatican II, reformers were all the rage. They were going to lead us out of our Catholic ghettos by altering the liturgy, rewriting the Bible and missals, abandoning the old traditions, making us more ecumenical, and engaging the world. And their legacy?

Four decades of devastation wrought upon the church, and the final disgrace of a hierarchy that lacked the moral courage of the Boy Scouts to keep the perverts out of the seminaries, and throw them out of the rectories and schools of Holy Mother Church.

Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway.

Jones’ statistics tell us the price of appeasement.

This article is taken from townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20021211.shtml

“Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II” (113 pages) by Kenneth C. Jones is available at many bookstores.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I could say the “church” has sought to meet the world halfway, but some of those supposedly in authority certainly have. My question is, why couldn’t this rush to inauthentic “change” be nipped in the bud? I am so happy, the parishes I have attended and belonged too keep a strong Catholic structure. I have seen no blatent outrages at the Mass. However, it does seem some of the parish clergy are wishy washy when truths of the Church are addressed. What has happened to all the strong Catholic leaders?
 
When we all die and face Jesus, will we meet him face to face and shake his hand as an equal, or will we be down on our knees in worship?

Chances are good we’ll be down on our knees. Kneeling is a form of adoration. How is receiving standing, in the hand, a form of adoration?
 
“get over the idea that people who prefer CITH are some kind of misguided, irreverent rubes”

I never said this, I think, nor do I think I implied it. The practice is objectively less reverent, and likely to lead to less reverence in those participating.

One definition of reverence is “A gesture or respect, a bow”.

“and that there is some inherent moral superiority to receiving kneeling and on the tongue.”

I don’t know about moral superiority, as a technical term, but **how better to show your feeling towards Christ our King than to kneel, in a vulnerable position, and be hand-fed like a babe?
**
[My underlining] “I have seen lots of hosts dropped missing someone’s tongue but have never once seen one dropped while distributing to the hand.”

Recently? Are you going to a wide range of TLMs in different churches? And: bad paten work, there, if so! 🙂

“I saw the exact same glazed-over looks on many that I see on many today.”

Now, is that a subjective opinion, as to a person’s inner state? At least in the TLM, those that have the disposition to worship fervently can do so in peace (at a less noisy service) and with more, external, objective, reverence feeding their inner disposition.
  • No neigbours getting up to read lessons, unvested.
  • No having to swop queues to avoid the EMC.
  • No happy-clappy hymns in your daily language.
  • No having to give responses much more often, in the local language, thus disturbing any reverential train of thought or feeling.
To: Ockham

Here’s a notion I’m toying with.

The N.O. Mass with the novelties that now attend it are the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing modernism to a head as a boil on the body of the Church.

This will be lanced by the natural, instinctive desire of religious people for greater piety on one hand and the dissolution of those clergy, religious, and lay organisations that favour ‘progression’, on the other.

When the true, bitter fruits of using the Vat. II Council to modernise our religion are more widely known, it will be an inoculation against further experimentation for at least 100 years.

They will tell young seminarians:* “You want to epxperiment with the Mass? Remember Vatican II!” *
 
Layman said:
The practice is objectively less reverent, and likely to lead to less reverence in those participating.
Click to expand...
This is so patently absurd and outside of Catholic teaching as to cause me to just shake my head in wonder.
[My underlining] "I have seen lots of hosts dropped missing someone’s tongue but have never once seen one dropped while distributing to the hand."
Click to expand...
Recently? Are you going to a wide range of TLMs in different churches? And: bad paten work, there, if so! 🙂
Click to expand...
Whether they are caught by a paten, or whether there is a paten even present, is not the point. The point is that your contention that hosts are more likely to be dropped when distributing in the hand is pure baloney. And yes, I’ve been to many, many Masses in many different churches all over the world.
“I saw the exact same glazed-over looks on many that I see on many today.”
Click to expand...
Now, is that a subjective opinion, as to a person’s inner state?
Click to expand...
Nope, no opinion about the inner state at all. Simply an observation. As one who admits to being very caught up in deduction by externals though, you might wish to form an opinion. Mine would be that whatever current disposition may be reflected by that glazed look, I saw the same look at the pre-V2 communion rails. If you attribute it to lack of reverence now, I guess we would be logically inclined to come to the same conclusion then.
At least in the TLM, those that have the disposition to worship fervently can do so in peace (at a less noisy service) and with more, external, objective, reverence feeding their inner disposition.
Click to expand...
Again, patently absurd. I’m sure there are churches where this might be an issue but I don’t encounter it with any kind of frequency.

I must say that, given the Pope’s position that the two liturgies are equal, this continued attitude of superiority is very disturbing. One is certainly entitled to their opinions and preferences but proclaiming them as “objectively” better?? :rolleyes: I guess I’ll just have to leave you to that as I’m sure that nothing I could say or do would “measure up.”

Peace be with you as we enter Holy Week.
 
‘Be careful that you do not lose anything of the Body of the Lord. If you let fall anything, you must think of it as though you cut off one of the members of your own body. Tell me, I beg you, if someone gave you kernels of gold, would you not guard them with the greatest care and diligence, intent on not losing anything? Should you not exercise even greater care and vigilance, so that not even a crumb of the Lord’s Body could fall to the ground, for It is far more precious than gold or jewels?’

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
The practice is objectively less reverent, and likely to lead to less reverence in those participating.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly true that it is more reverent, externally and objectively, to kneel than to stand. 🙂

This is rather self evident to anyone but the deliberately obtuse, but one can prove it to any neutral party simply by approaching the person and thrusting one’s hand out, or kneeling in front of the person. The reaction of the other party in either case will be different.

But for someone who still protests this matter, one merely has to look to the Church who proscribes genuflexion as a greater reverence than a bow, and the matter is settled.
 
Hi,

If you are looking for a answer I suggest that you look in the Catholic Encyclopedias. You can start off by looking up and reading under Communion, then for more info go to Holy Communion. But for the answer that you are looking for, you will find under Eucharist, page 589. Paragraph 3 (b)
Hope this helps you.

Gregory
 
Forgot to mention, Under (5) The Minister of the Eucharist: (b)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top