Communion in the Hand

[Sirach2]

Regardless, in the OF/NO/Paul VI Missae, communion is allowed to be received standing or kneeling, on the tongue or in the hand. Make your own choice, and unless you are being denied communion in the OF for trying to receive in one way or the other, do not bother yourself too much with it.

As Our Lord would say to those whose only concern is watching others and lamenting that the sacrament is not distributed as THEY prefer, “Amen, they have received their reward.” The utter lack of peace of heart and mind is a most pitiable condition that they bring totally upon themselves.

If we can overlook these extremists and offer a prayer for their peace instead, we may be doing them a wonderful spiritual act of mercy.

 

[clem456]

Fisheaters is a great site. Some of the people at the forum are nasty. Ignore the forum and read the main site. You will likely learn a lot.

I disagree.
This from the home page is a non-starter for me:

For Catholics

So you’re Catholic but are confused and dissatisfied. Your liturgy is in disarray, your R.C.I.A. class was barely Catholic, and you can hardly tell the difference between the religion you left and what you see going on in your parish. What’s going on? Find out in this section, and demand the ancient Mass, all the traditional Sacramental rites, and sound traditional Catholic teaching.

Whispering in the ear of the angry and disaffected.

 

[SuperTrad]

When a revolution comes it’s terribly exciting. If you’re young at the time, it forms your character. It’s hard for members of an organisation to say later: “We made a mistake”.

None of the things that were introduced from the 60’s onwards were innovative or helpful to the Faith. They’ve all been done previously by the Church itself and were abandoned or were done by Protestants. Or both.

Acheologists say: “X was done in the year 300, let us revive it”. Now, often it’s the case that X was not done in the way they’ve revived it and/or X was abandoned for good reason. Or the only grounds for X is a shaky quote from a cleric most Catholics have never heard of.

The real reason, I say, that all these changes have happened is that there has been a concerted, semi-conscious push in the Church to make the Mass more like a communal meal and to play down uncomfortable aspects of our Faith.

A Catholicism which is easy-going on things like divorce/annulments, liturgical rigour, contraception, sin, Hell, discipline and the roles of men and women makes it much easier for clergy to liaise with the modern world and much easier for a layman to do as he wishes and still claim to be faithful.

Catholics and Christians generally are now slowly realising, once gain, that the World hates Christ, as it has always done. You’re not helping us by permitting CITH and other archeolgisms. The trend is towards ‘Religion is easy and fun. You are important’ instead of ‘Repent, sinner and seek the Sacraments. Humble yourself before Christus Imperator’.

The proposed ideal: an enthusiastic, learned laity seeking their own sanctification in beautiful churches at beautiful masses.

The reality: Mass which gets increasingly ‘phoned in’ in bland churches, as standards are dropped left, right and centre, attended by laity who don’t believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Melchior_1]

When a revolution comes it’s terribly exciting. If you’re young at the time, it forms your character. It’s hard for members of an organisation to say later: “We made a mistake”.

None of the things that were introduced from the 60’s onwards were innovative or helpful to the Faith. They’ve all been done previously by the Church itself and were abandoned or were done by Protestants. Or both.

Acheologists say: “X was done in the year 300, let us revive it”. Now, often it’s the case that X was not done in the way they’ve revived it and/or X was abandoned for good reason. Or the only grounds for X is a shaky quote from a cleric most Catholics have never heard of.

The real reason, I say, that all these changes have happened is that there has been a concerted, semi-conscious push in the Church to make the Mass more like a communal meal and to play down uncomfortable aspects of our Faith.

A Catholicism which is easy-going on things like divorce/annulments, liturgical rigour, contraception, sin, Hell, discipline and the roles of men and women makes it much easier for clergy to liaise with the modern world and much easier for a layman to do as he wishes and still claim to be faithful.

Catholics and Christians generally are now slowly realising, once gain, that the World hates Christ, as it has always done. You’re not helping us by permitting CITH and other archeolgisms.

The proposed ideal: an enthusiastic, learned laity seeking their own sanctification in beautiful churches at beautiful masses.

The reality: Mass which gets increasingly ‘phoned in’ in bland churches, as standards are dropped left, right and centre, attended by laity who don’t believe in the Real Presence.

You know, by ignoring valid and authentic traditions that have been around for 800 - 1500 years, you’re not actually being a traditionalist, you’re being something else entirely.

 

[clem456]

CITH is just one of a range of changes that have happen in Catholicism. You can trace them back to the 60’s, the 40’s or to the Reformation. They are based on a delusion: that you can have a more ‘authentic’ Christianity by picking and mixing elements from the past that appeal to the tastes of the present. The Protestants already tried that. They’re still experimenting.

Dripping with irony.

 

[severus68]

When a revolution comes it’s terribly exciting. If you’re young at the time, it forms your character. It’s hard for members of an organisation to say later: “We made a mistake”.

None of the things that were introduced from the 60’s onwards were innovative or helpful to the Faith. They’ve all been done previously by the Church itself and were abandoned or were done by Protestants. Or both.

Acheologists say: “X was done in the year 300, let us revive it”. Now, often it’s the case that X was not done in the way they’ve revived it and/or X was abandoned for good reason. Or the only grounds for X is a shaky quote from a cleric most Catholics have never heard of.

The real reason, I say, that all these changes have happened is that there has been a concerted, semi-conscious push in the Church to make the Mass more like a communal meal and to play down uncomfortable aspects of our Faith.

A Catholicism which is easy-going on things like divorce/annulments, liturgical rigour, contraception, sin, Hell, discipline and the roles of men and women makes it much easier for clergy to liaise with the modern world and much easier for a layman to do as he wishes and still claim to be faithful.

Catholics and Christians generally are now slowly realising, once gain, that the World hates Christ, as it has always done. You’re not helping us by permitting CITH and other archeolgisms. The trend is towards ‘Religion is easy and fun. You are important’ instead of ‘Repent, sinner and seek the Sacraments. Humble yourself before Christus Imperator’.

The proposed ideal: an enthusiastic, learned laity seeking their own sanctification in beautiful churches at beautiful masses.

The reality: Mass which gets increasingly ‘phoned in’ in bland churches, as standards are dropped left, right and centre, attended by laity who don’t believe in the Real Presence.

So poor people in a poor country should not have mass in a hut because it is not a beautiful church? Christ said that He would be wherever people are gathered in His name.
It appears to be very much about externals for you.

 

[ProVobis]

They are based on a delusion: that you can have a more ‘authentic’ Christianity by picking and mixing elements from the past that appeal to the tastes of the present. The Protestants already tried that. They’re still experimenting.

You may have hit on something there.

A few weeks ago I attended a memorial for my niece at a Lutheran parish where she had attended school. The method of communion was for each to pick up a host and then have the option of dipping the host in the wine before consuming it. I didn’t receive but the flow went perfectly and each seemed to be spiritually filled.

According to the principles espoused by many posters here, this should be a well-accepted option too if adopted by the Church, no?

 

[clem456]

…
Do you realize that we have only one document actually written by Francis himself? We know that it was he who wrote it, because it has his signature. That is his Testament. The other documents that we have are copies or originals written by scribes, dictated by Francis. Some were not dictated by him, but collections of his sayings. The faithful will just have to accept oral tradition or deny it. It really has on impact on the Franciscan order. It has an impact on the laity, because the order was founded to be a school of Gospel life for the laity to observe and learn. You can’t force an adult to go to school.

Brother would you or anyone else be able to expound on this topic in bold? Or give some good links? I have searched the forum and not found anything specific to this “school of gospel life”. I realize it may be off topic and maybe another thread is needed.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, CITH is very significant of what Francis and his movement is all about. His movement is about fraternity and equality. We are a family of brothers and sisters, lay and religious, ordained and non-ordained. The CITH, in some ironic way, actually reminds us that we are one family, sons and daughters of one Seraphic Father to whom we owe obedience and through him, to the pope and the local bishop where we work.

It was not meant to become the symbol of Franciscan unity, but in some interesting way, CITH represents us well.

It’s good that you find spirituality in CITH. But the unity part doesn’t always work and this is covered in the first condition imposed by the Vatican.

1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

IOW, the test would fail if we had all posters here in the same parish.

Just saying.

 

[Pork_Roll]

The manner of reception of the sacred host is a discipline. It can change and is not black or white. It can’t be doubted that reception kneeling on the tounge along the altar rail was traditional for 100s of years for the church. The people who petitioned the Vatican for CITH wanted to break from that tradition for better or worse. My opinion is that it didn’t prompote the with proper understanding of the real presence and its origins are suspicious.

I understand that people who recieve in the hand do so with reverence and the proper understanding of the Eucharist. But this is not the point. The question is whether CITH was a good idea or a prudent decision. To say that the church is incapable of making an imprudent decision in disipline is not true. History proves this point.

 

[Melchior_1]

IOW, the test would fail if we had all posters here in the same parish.

Just saying.

Fail on which end?

Group 1: Hand or tongue, both are fine.

Group 2: Tongue only, no hands. You shouldn’t use your hands.

 

[Brendan]

Second myth: A priest can’t tell you not to receive COTT.

In the USA, the GIRM says that the ordinary way for receiving communion is on the hand while standing. However, the GIRM does say that communion cannot be denied to one who wishes to receive it on the tongue or on his knees. But the GIRM does say that the priest should counsel the individual as to the proper way to receive Holy Communion in the USA…

Brother,

As was pointed out above, the US adaptations to the GIRM were recently revised to bring the Particular Norm of standing inline with the various dubia released by the CDWDS and Redemptions Sacramentum.

Currently, a Particular Norm of standing no longer exists if the person wished to kneel and any call for the priest to consul the individual has been removed from the GIRM

1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling.

In addition, there has never been a US GIRM adaptation that listed CITH as a liturgical Norm within the United States.

In fact, the US Bishops stated in their document - Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord

1. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words “The Body of Christ.” The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue

 

[Sirach2]

Fisheaters.com is a website with tons of perfectly orthodox material. The discussion forum is a different matter. Stop confusing the two and stop confusing the opinions of some posters at the forum with the opinions of the person who made the Fisheaters site. Noone confuses some poster’s opinions here with the opinions of the people who run this site, do they?

It is good of you to want to defend a website where you obviously have strong connections.
Following up with Clem’s disagreement with you, I submit this partial excerpt from their introduction.

After much study, I’ve come to the conclusion that, validity issues aside, the “Novus Ordo Mass” is tragically flawed, something my instincts and “common sense” have told me since I was a child. The very name of this Mass – “Novus Ordo,” i.e., “New Order” – should make anyone with a true Catholic nature cringe, and its effects are so incredibly sad it almost hurts to think about it. It has turned out to be a “New Mass” for a “New Religion” – and that religion is “not Catholic enough.”

The “Novus Ordo,” whether offered in English or Latin, is a violent break with Tradition, directly responsible, in part, for the great loss of faith which followed its publication.
(–snip–) The Novus Ordo – not so much for what it is inherently, but for what it isn’t, for what it lacks – appears as the "Mass of Cain," arrogantly bringing his own works to God; the ancient Mass is the “Mass of Abel,” who humbly offered God a sacrifice – a lamb that prefigured the Passover lamb which, in turn, prefigured the Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world, Whose offering of Himself to us is eternal.

Maybe you were not aware that Fisheaters is a haven for banned members from Catholic Answers. If they were not compliant and ethical here, should anyone want to keep company with a large number of them at Fisheaters, absorbing their poison and lack of charity?

 

[LightBound]

Fisheaters.com is a website with tons of perfectly orthodox material. The discussion forum is a different matter. Stop confusing the two and stop confusing the opinions of some posters at the forum with the opinions of the person who made the Fisheaters site. Noone confuses some poster’s opinions here with the opinions of the people who run this site, do they?

Perhaps it’s because our moderators here at CAF don’t allow things to be posted that are against what the Magisterium teaches. In fact, people actually get banned for doing so on here if they can’t abide by the rules. On FE, the opposite tends to hold true. Since Sirach2 has already posted a quote from the introduction to their regular site, showing you that they do indeed make disparaging remarks about what the Church teaches, I’ll refrain from posting others. That link should be enough for someone who is true to all the teachings of the Magisterium to see that certain sites out there are most assuredly not adhering to those teachings and have no qualms about blatantly stating their dissension right there on their website.

 

[LightBound]

It is good of you to want to defend a website where you obviously have strong connections.
Following up with Clem’s disagreement with you, I submit this partial excerpt from their introduction.

Maybe you were not aware that Fisheaters is a haven for banned members from Catholic Answers. If they were not compliant and ethical here, should anyone want to keep company with a large number of them at Fisheaters, absorbing their poison and lack of charity?

 

[LightBound]

When a liberal considers the Church “deluded” about something, they are called “cafeteria Catholics.”
Why should it be different for a “trad”?

It’s not. They are simply selecting certain items from the other side of the buffet. It’s still “pick and choose”!!

 

[Rich_C]

Only when they say that those who commonly receive CITH, as allowed by the Church in her wisdom, are somehow less reverent, or even less Catholic, than those who receive on the tongue.
THAT is the disagreement.

I wonder if there is a way to propose COTT as the best way, that doesn’t imply that Catholics who receive Holy Communion in the hand are automatically guilty of giving God less than their best?

The Church herself, in the CDW document of 1969 and the writings of hierarchs posted elsewhere in this thread, expressed doubts that CITH could foster, generally among the average Catholic, the same level of reverence that could be fostered by COTT. It was not an inherent fault in the practice that troubled them, but the practical fallout.

I try to think with the mind of the Church even though I sometimes doubt the Church’s policies (not its doctrines). I only struggle with Church policies with which the Church herself has struggled, because I know they have changed and may change again.

I’m starting to ramble because I got up too early for Mass today, but I wish we had more fruitful discussions here. The typical “trad” position and the typical “CAF” position both seem too extreme for me. I will try to hold the Church’s position as best I can understand it.

/opining

 

[JReducation]

Brother would you or anyone else be able to expound on this topic in bold? Or give some good links? I have searched the forum and not found anything specific to this “school of gospel life”. I realize it may be off topic and maybe another thread is needed.

You won’t find those words. Those are my way of explaining what Francis saw as the mission of the order. This mission comes through very clearly in the rule. See the chapter on “our place in the Church.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

As was pointed out above, the US adaptations to the GIRM were recently revised to bring the Particular Norm of standing inline with the various dubia released by the CDWDS and Redemptions Sacramentum.

Currently, a Particular Norm of standing no longer exists if the person wished to kneel and any call for the priest to consul the individual has been removed from the GIRM

In addition, there has never been a US GIRM adaptation that listed CITH as a liturgical Norm within the United States.

In fact, the US Bishops stated in their document - Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

I just realized this. I had not seen the Roman Missal after it was re-issued this past Advent. We don’t use it. We use the Franciscan Missal and the rubrics in that one have not changed.

Most parishes would use the Roman missal, unless they belong to a religious community. In that case, they have their own missal and you follow their rubrics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Rich_C]

Maybe you were not aware that Fisheaters is a haven for banned members from Catholic Answers. If they were not compliant and ethical here, should anyone want to keep company with a large number of them at Fisheaters, absorbing their poison and lack of charity?

This sounds like McCarthyism. They shouldn’t be red-listed. I know more than a few good Catholics who are not allowed here anymore. Their company is really pleasant and their faith is inspiring. Should they be dead to me?