PROUD 2 B RC said:
+JMJ+
Ok,fine but I have one question for you does it not bother you that when you receive you could have a particle on your hand after communion is over and that the particle could fall to the ground.Or if when you recieve you drop the Host.Note I am not asking why you recieve that way merely asking do you worry about suching things happening?This will be my last question on the post.But the church did allow it only after the abuse became so wide spread.Yes the Church has spoken and I will submit!As I always have and have stated before.
Code:
God bless you and Mary keep you!
since I receive in the hand, I will give you my answer. I am not going to venture down the path about reverence for the Eucharist other than to say that it seems obvious that some people do not have the proper reverence. It might come as a surprise that there were people pre Vatican 2 who did not have the proper reverence then, either.
It is important to have reverence for the Eucharist and for Our Lord. It is also a fact that if one has no notice that there is a very small particle remaining on one’s hand, one is not being irreverent to Our Lord. The question has been asked and answered elsewhere that at the point that a particle cannot be identified as part of a Host, the Real Presence, for our purposes, ceases.
We are called to reverence. We are not called to a hyper-reverence wherein we worry to extremes about whether or not there might be some fine particle that somehow might escape our attention and we would thus be abusing Jesus.
Christ broke Bread and gave it to his disciples to eat. It was the common flat bread, unleavened, which they used in the Passover Feast. anyone who has come in contact with that or something very similar to that would know that there will be crumbs. nothing in the Gospel accounts, and nothing from the early Church inidcates that this was an issue at all. and given the stability of the hosts which we now have to consecrate compared to what Christ used, there is almost no chance at all of any identifiable crumbs being in our hand (or for that matter, falling on our chin) if we receive the hosts which are usually about the size betwwen a quarter and a half dollar.
If we receive the Host which has been broken from the large host which the priest consecrates, there is a slightly greater chance that there may be a small crumb in our hand. It is fairly simple; lick your index finger enough to mositen it and pick up the crumb and consume it.
That would be about the same thing you would have done if you had received 2000 years ago from Christ Himself, except that the crumbs would probably have been bigger.
the reason that the Church has moved to larger and thicker hosts is because the Eucharist is both sacrifice and sacred meal. The host is supposed to look like food, like bread; we are supposed to eat, not sublimate. If you wnat to receive on the tongue, by all means do so. But don’t become hyper religious, as in doing so you are coming so close to judging others actions that those others have a really hard time distinguishing between your feelings and wht appears to be an implict attitude of “You folks who do that aren’t holy; you are irreverent.”
I am sure that you don’t mean that. at least, I think I am sure you don’t.
further, there seems to be an implicit assumption in your comments about it being started by dissidents (and therefore somehow of evil parentage). Rome could easily have quashed the whole issue had they wanted to; there are ample disciplinary proceedures they can bring to bear.
Rome, however, chose to approve the reception in the hand. Throughout the history of the Church, many changes have come not from Rome but from the pews and parishes. A prime example is the fact that in the Dark Ages (and before), the official position of the church regarding the sacrament of Reconcilliation was that you received it only once. It was the Irish monks who went against the official Church understanding of the sacrament and gave reconcilliation more than once in a lifetime. Furthermore, the sacrament officially was a public confession. the Irish monks went against that, too, by starting private confessions.
Strange, those dissident monks. Maybe, just maybe, they knew more than Rome?
And I am not suggesting that any and every dissident priest, monk, theologian or parishoner knows more than Rome, so don’t even bother coming back with that. I am suggesting that Rome saw something that came from the people, and saw that while it might not be what Rome would prefer, that it too was acceptable and purposefull and meaningful. Rome, instead of quashing it, gave permission to do it. That in itself should speak volumes.
As far as those who choose to receive in the hand that is certainly their concern and their own business. The Church says they can so it’s fine with me. I really don’t understand it but hey who am I? I have asked this question before, but just for the heck of it I will ask again, Why receive in the hand?
