Communion in the Hand?

[PaulinVA]

Why not? It’d be an uphill climb, but it could happen. It’s leading by example, and there’s no reason why communion on the tongue could not become widespread in the OF. No, it wouldn’t be a universal practice (at least not until such time as the CITH indult were rescinded), but if the “groundswell” were strong enough, even that parenthetical could happen.

My point is that we can’t force the Bishops to do anything.

And, quite frankly, according to the Gallup poll released last week 67% of Catholics believe that sex before marriage is morally acceptable, and 40% support abortion. Do you think they care how they unworthily receive the Eucharist on Sundays?

 

[Ockham]

My point is that we can’t force the Bishops to do anything.

And, quite frankly, according to the Gallup poll released last week 67% of Catholics believe that sex before marriage is morally acceptable, and 40% support abortion. Do you think they care how they unworthily receive the Eucharist on Sundays?

How does that phrase go…‘as you pray so you believe’?

 

[paperwight]

My point is that we can’t force the Bishops to do anything.

And, quite frankly, according to the Gallup poll released last week 67% of Catholics believe that sex before marriage is morally acceptable, and 40% support abortion. Do you think they care how they unworthily receive the Eucharist on Sundays?

Just clarify that last bit, will you, please?
Are you saying that those who receive on the hand are ipso facto receiving unworthily?

 

[malphono]

And isn’t this the way we got CITH in the first place? It wasn’t from Vatican II and Pope Paul VI actually spoke against it. Didn’t it come out of Holland, then a special exception to allow it in some places, a few years later it is the way children preparing for their First Communion are taught.

I know full well CITH didn’t come from the Council, and in case you hadn’t noticed from my prior posts, I am not a supporter of the practice.

Whether it started in the Netherlands or not I don’t know and don’t much care. When it began, though, CITH was not an recognized option. It became such due to the usual “indult” under Paul VI. Which means that, when the practice began, it was being done against established rules. That’s a lot different from mobilizing forces, so-to-speak, in favor of communion in the traditional manner.

Yes, Paul VI and his 2nd successor both spoke against the practice of CITH but, as I said way early on in this [post=4911706]thread[/post], neither did anything whatsoever to stop it. So for better or worse, it remains an option by indult, at least until the indult is rescinded.

 

[malphono]

My point is that we can’t force the Bishops to do anything.

And my point is lead by example. Period.

And, quite frankly, according to the Gallup poll released last week 67% of Catholics believe that sex before marriage is morally acceptable, and 40% support abortion. Do you think they care how they unworthily receive the Eucharist on Sundays?

And what does any of that have to do with CITH?

 

[OldRedleg]

It’s all about internal disposition to receive the Body Of Christ. The Church has spoken. Communion in the Hand is allowed.

Reference:

Like so many changes that there was no basis for or need for, this one only has led to a lack of reverence, respect and belief in the true presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

On March 29, 1998 the Rev. Mohlomi Makobane, a Catholic priest in Soweto, South Africa, gave Holy Communion to then President Clinton, a Jesuit-educated Southern Baptist who worshiped at his wife’s Methodist church in Washington, D.C.

How much respect and belief in the true presence did this guy have when he received communion on the tounge? He certainly appears to be receiving with all due respect and reverence. Now in all charity I have no idea what was in President Clinton’s heart when he did this. But I think it illustrates the point.

We should not be judging our brothers on this issue. That is up to God.

 

[Ockham]

Because a less-reverent person can receive Communion on the tongue does not change the fact that it is a more reverent practice then receiving in hand.

 

[OldRedleg]

To say that receiving communion on the tongue is a more reverent practice is a personal opinion that you are entitled to. But it is not a statement of fact.

The indult for communion in the hand describes the technique taught by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in his Mystagogical Catechesis V who wrote:

“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”

(Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, or Sources chretiennes, 126, p 171; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898. etc.).

It was an accepted practice in the early Church and taught as the way to receive the Euchrist by this Church Father.

Those who receive the Body of Christ in their hands are every bit as orthodox as those who receive Him on the tongue. It is the inner sense of devotion and belief in the real presence that is important.

It is not for us to judge our brothers and sisters internal piety and devotion to the Eucharist through a simple observation of whether they receive on the tongue or in the hand.

Let us not bring unnecessary division to the body of the Church on this issue as long as both methods are fully allowed and approved by our bishops. Lets face it. The guys who wrote and approved the indult (with the Pope’s blessing) were men with Doctorates in Divinity and with far more theological training and experience on this issue than anyone posting on this board.

 

[Shin]

I
On March 29, 1998 the Rev. Mohlomi Makobane, a Catholic priest in Soweto, South Africa, gave Holy Communion to then President Clinton, a Jesuit-educated Southern Baptist who worshiped at his wife’s Methodist church in Washington, D.C.

We should not be judging our brothers on this issue. That is up to God.

God gives us the criteria to judge by, to the extent He requires us to do so. If we judge by God’s criteria, then we have no fear because that -is- the criteria we -will- be judged by ourselves.

The action of the former president was a great sacrilege and blasphemy, and it was unnecessary and inappropriate for you to post a picture of it. In fact, I must say it is a sin, to depict a blasphemous act such as he committed to that extent, and that which the priest performed.

The topic is Communion in the Hand, not blasphemous acts of the former president. Nevertheless if he had had to kneel, if everyone around him had more impressed him that this was God, and a God only to be approached appropriately, perhaps he would have realized a bit more that he was not to approach and not committed that sin before the world.

 

[malphono]

The topic is Communion in the Hand, not blasphemous acts of the former president. Nevertheless if he had had to kneel, if everyone around him had more impressed him that this was God, and a God only to be approached appropriately, perhaps he would have realized a bit more that he was not to approach and not committed that sin before the world.

No argument that Clinton should not have taken communion, but the sin involved was not his. Rather, the sin was on the part of the priest who gave him communion. It is was the priest who committed that sin before the world, not the former president. Clinton perhaps didn’t know better. The priest did.

 

[Ockham]

The guys who wrote and approved the indult (with the Pope’s blessing) were men with Doctorates in Divinity and with far more theological training and experience on this issue than anyone posting on this board.

Never automatically assume the educated are using that knowledge for good.

It is common knowledge the early Christians received in hand. Do you also know why that was changed?

Why did this practice start again anyway? Who was the priest that first allowed it in Holland? Why did the bishops permit it?

Kneeling is more reverent than standing. Jesus knelt in prayer.

Psalm 95
A Call to Praise and Obedience
Come, let us sing joyfully to the Lord;
cry out to the rock of our salvation.
Let us greet him with a song of praise,
joyfully sing ot our psalms.
For the Lord is the great God,
the great king over all god,
Whose hand holds the depths of the earth;
who owns the top of the mountains.
The sea and dry land belong to God,
who made them, formed them by hand.

Enter, let us bow down in worship;
let us kneel before the Lord who made us.
For this is our God,
whose people we are,
God’s well-tended flock.

“Out of reverence towards this Sacrament,
nothing touches It but what is consecrated”
St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Shin]

He should have known better, he is competent enough to know better – the sin is in both.

 

[malphono]

He should have known better, he is competent enough to know better – the sin is in both.

No. Clinton is a Baptist. The priest supposedly is Catholic. Do the math.

 

[Shin]

No. Clinton is a Baptist. The priest supposedly is Catholic. Do the math.

He is an Oxford educated former president of the USA, who went to a Catholic school as a child I might also add.

He is an educated man. He has the basic responsibility to know what he should have done there, to know the elementary basics about the Catholic Faith. Far more than that, God no doubt gave him many graces to know a great deal about the Faith and called him to learn to know even more than just how to behave.

But he denied them, and sinned, and lived in sin instead and then took Communion while being a notorious man of sin. The call is obvious. The responsibility is clear.

Culpable ignorance at the -very least-, far more clearly than that. That is the math.

 

[Ockham]

Clinton’s height of arrogance leads him to create his own definitions, laws, and morals.

Does he really believe a fetus is not fertilized?

youtube.com/watch?v=Zmh9p1rlkQk

 

[rookieonedge]

No, I am not being scarastic. So let me rephrase "more opportunity for judging (likely) means more judging.

The book I referred to , (I am sorry I forgot the author’s name) is a VERY good read, much better than anything Michael Davies ever wrote.

Obedience is the #1 abuse in the traditional circuit. I do miss a time when obedience was the number 1 thing in all family units and church life. When children had honor and respect for their parents, their elders, and their priests. They obeyed, and yes blindly, but our world was a much better and safer place to live.

Children didn’t rise up against parents, you never heard of parents being slaughtered by their own. You could find the 10 commandents everywhere, and a gentleman’s handshake was his word.

And, please remember, Jesus ate with dirty hands. The meal started by consecrating the food but then eaten with dirty hands.

Too much emphasis is placed on the “right way” as thought to be the “right way” and not enough love between each other. Which is the greatest commandment.

So what’s the problem with Michael Davies? Don’t you think he has the credentials to make a legitmate complaint about the changes wrought after Vatican II?

You are right about the subject of “obedience.” It seems to be going out of style. It takes humility to bend the will. Children should learn that before reaching the teen years.

We can’t say that Jesus actually ate with “dirty hands.” He wanted to emphasize that what is inside is more indicative of our “cleanliness” than what is on he outside. So He was making a point when asked why His disciples do not wash following the prescribed rituals.

Although this thread concerns Communion in the hand, nevertheless, it seems to go along with various abuses and changes in not only celebrating the Mass but also in the physical structure of our places of worship. Maybe this is not the place to opine but, INHO, the very lack of reverence being discussed here originates with the changes in architecture of modern-style churches with the tabernacle removed from the center or in another room so that the body of the church is more like a reception hall instead of a holy place. However, even in churches with a traditional look, people are talking and chewing gum, so it’s more than just architecture and surroundings.

Also, the changes in the musical genre influence the style of worship. The Wanderer, a weekly Catholic conservative newspaper, has been printing articles by Jeffrey Tucker on the aesthetics of sacred music. In the March 26th edition is an article by Mr. Tucker titled “Working Our Way to the High Mass.” This commentary concerns the difficuty of getting the High Mass underway because of the problem celebrants have in the use of Latin, not to mention the laity. I quote:

“What is the solution here? . . . The Mass is not something that can suddenly appear in a culture in its most complete form. In fact, there is a sense in which no Mass lives in isolation either from eternity or from temporality. It always exists within a culture that it shapes and is also shaped by it. This culture cannot be instantly manufactured in one place. It must grow over time.”

---

“In those respects in which the sooul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself.” (St. Bernard)

 

[Yours_Truly]

So what’s the problem with Michael Davies? Don’t you think he has the credentials to make a legitmate complaint about the changes wrought after Vatican II?

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, had to say about Michael Davies following his death in September 2004:

Cardinal Ratzinger: "I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St. Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St. Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I keep reading about Jesus eating with dirty hands.

Although Jesus continually slammed the Pharisees about their strict adherence to Jewish law, specifically keeping the Sabbath, He did not eat with unclean hands. Jews washed their hands before they ate.

In the same manner, the priest washes his hands at the offering, although it does memorialize something else and really is not intended for cleanliness.

Besides, it would have been out of character for him not to wash before eating, The Blessed Virgin would have insisted he do it before meals.

The Last Supper was at the Passover. The Passover meal was all about tradition. Washing before the meal would have been proper.

I may not know much, but this makes sense to me.

Eddie Mac

 

[malphono]

He is an Oxford educated former president of the USA, who went to a Catholic school as a child I might also add.

He is an educated man. He has the basic responsibility to know what he should have done there, to know the elementary basics about the Catholic Faith. Far more than that, God no doubt gave him many graces to know a great deal about the Faith and called him to learn to know even more than just how to behave.

But he denied them, and sinned, and lived in sin instead and then took Communion while being a notorious man of sin. The call is obvious. The responsibility is clear.

Whatever.

 

[malphono]

Clinton’s height of arrogance leads him to create his own definitions, laws, and morals.

Does he really believe a fetus is not fertilized?

Take your politics to another forum please.