Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windmill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~the5thd/welcome_files/Crystal Ball.gif

Hmmmmm (waving hands) …I predict that this thread will shortly descend into yet another argument.

Perhaps we should have virtual popcorn and snacks- that would make it even more exciting.

Let me be a pompous prat for a moment, thechrismyster: you’re not going to endear anyone to your views no matter how true it is, if you say smug. The word has a tendency to automatically blot out the other parts of the post.
 
AJV said:
Reception in the hand, though, continued for long after the practise of reserving at home was stopped. The Catechical instructions of Cyril (or pseudo-Cyril) do not address it in the light of taking it home. Though in Rome, at least, women had to cover their hands with the white cloth for sundry reasons including those that I am too prudish to write about.
Click to expand...
As I said, Palmas85 can explain it better than I can.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
At our parish we receive kneeling and on the tongue by intinction.

Where in the world are you getting smug distain?
When I asked her why she received that way, she said, “It’s Jesus. My hands may be dirty.”

While perfectly licit, I have not taught her about church rules. Neither has her Catechism class. When it is age appropriate, we will do this.

Until then, she is allowed to receive on the tongue, so what is the problem with it?
Click to expand...
i have no problem with it! good for her.
at 9 i’d assume she’d understand the differences… but whatever, to each their own.
 
thechrismyster said:
i have no problem with it! good for her.
at 9 i’d assume she’d understand the differences… but whatever, to each their own.
Click to expand...
you know be this child 9 or 90 if she wants to recieve on the tongue that is her option! It is as licit as recieving on the hand!
 
thechrismyster said:
Bishops, Cardinals and Popes have all supported receiving in the hand. millions of Catholic receive in the hand every day.

why would my 9 year old be better than that? is she enlightened as to the purity of her own Eucharistic worthiness in ways i don’t understand? if it’s not a problem for the Church to receive in the hand, and is a problem for my 9 year old… then i need to shape the thinking of my child, not the Church. Not that the action of receiving on the tounge is bad, but to intentionally shun one for the other shows bad Catholic formation.

such a blatant attitude is a symptom of a larger character flaw in the child.
Click to expand...
My nine year old cannot be called disobedient per the Vatican and she receives on the tongue every week, sometimes more than that, at her own parish.

I don’t think that any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope would be standing with your opinion, understanding that receiving on the tongue by intinction is the norm at our parish.
 
thechrismyster said:
Bishops, Cardinals and Popes have all supported receiving in the hand. millions of Catholic receive in the hand every day.
Click to expand...
Sure millions recieve in hand every day…No issue with that…but they also support recieving on the tongue…so what is your problem?
why would my 9 year old be better than that? is she enlightened as to the purity of her own Eucharistic worthiness in ways i don’t understand?
Click to expand...
Could be…who am I too know?
if it’s not a problem for the Church to receive in the hand, and is a problem for my 9 year old… then i need to shape the thinking of my child, not the Church.
Click to expand...
Why shape anything unless your child recieving on the tongue is a shame or embarresment to you?!?! IF the child after being told you can recievie either way still wants to recieve on the tongue do you still have issues with this?
Not that the action of receiving on the tounge is bad, but to intentionally shun one for the other shows bad Catholic formation.
Click to expand...
LOL! Where does it state I have to recieve on the tongue and in the hand? It does not ! The Faithful can recieve either way…it is what the indiviuals choice! How is that shunning?
such a blatant attitude is a symptom of a larger character flaw in the child.
Click to expand...
excuse me! :eek: I think you read to much into this, IMHO!
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
I don’t think that any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope would be standing with your opinion, understanding that receiving on the tongue by intinction is the norm at our parish.
Click to expand...
I agree with you…also we have attended masses at other churchs where the norm was recieving in the hand…my son does not follow the “Crowd” (so to speak) he does what he is allowed to do as a faithful Catholic, child of God…he recieves on the tongue…and you know what there is nothing wrong with that!
 
Rykell,

thanks for joining the conversation. 🙂

in your post, you ask for a clarification on my point about “hurt feelings”. that may not be the best choice of phrasing. a better way to put it would be this: what is the greater good? if people are determined to continue a practice that the hierarchy discourages, yet the practice is not invalidating the mass or some obvious form of error that can lead the faithful into heresy, then is it worth alienating many of the faithful by the hierarchy’s persistance in discouraging a practice?

in your counterpoint, you bring up contraception and women priests. these issues are inherently evil and are doctrinally unsound in and of themselves. therefore, hurt feelings or not, the church in incapable of allowing these things. respectfully, you are comparing apples to oranges.

here are some interesting links for those who want to read more…

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ413.HTM

Homiletic and Pastoral Review

Alice vonHildebrand on EWTN

as far as your points on the bishops encouraging both species on sunday, thereby necessitating EMHC’s, Rome has been very clear on that point and said that if the only way you can do both species is by using EMHCs, then you are not to do it. using truly extraordinary means to acheive a merely-encouraged practice is not good logic. besides, redemptionis sacramentum clearly states that habitual use of EMHCs at mass is to be “eliminated”. if a parish has a schedule of emhc’s, i’d say that’s pretty habitual.
 
clarification:
when I said “that may not be the best way to phrase it”, I meant the best way for ME to phrase it, not you :o
 
maurin said:
I LOVE Mother Teresa.

However, I do have a special love for receiving in the hand. As a matter of fact, I believe that receiving in the hand may just pre-date reception on the tongue.

It will take me a while folks, but I can find the documentation. It says something along the lines of “you shall make a throne of your right hand, resting in your left…”

.
Click to expand...
Here is the documentation from 350 AD:

catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

scroll down to the second to last paragraph on the first page.

I am interested in everyone’s thoughts. I hope we all remain true to Christ’s Sacred Heart by having a rational and respectful conversation about His Most Blessed Sacrament!!!

Let His Peace Reign Over Us,

maurin
 
Chrismyster’s posts are outrageous.

In the Roman Rite, Communion on the tongue is normative; Communion in the hand is by Indult.

When I received my First Communion, we were told we COULD NOT receive on the tongue. Since then, I’ve been told to receive in the hand, not the tongue, at dozens of Novus Ordo Masses in my life, in different locales.

So spare us the criticism of a child who exercises their RIGHT to receive on the tongue.
 
Windmill said:
maurin,

i understand your skepticism. my intent is not to cast aspersions on the american bishops. i believe we should pray for our current pastors. however, to ignore the history of how things came to be allowed by these indults (“exceptions to the rule”) is to fall into a legalism that says, “it’s allowed, therefore it must be good.”

the indeffectability of the church lies in what it proscribes (teaches as doctrine), not in what it allows to quell rebellion. IOW, the church does not “teach” or “promulgate” communion in the hand. it allows it. and while it is not inherently evil, communion in the hand and altar girls are compromises that the hierarchy reluctantly made to avoid people falling away from pratice due to hurt feelings.

if anything, i would say WE are the reason for a lot of the problems in the church. we oftentimes put pressure on priests and bishops, and they are humans who have their limits. imagine what would happen in the average parish if priests actually followed the pope’s encyclical, “redemptionis sacramentum”, and stopped doing extraordinary ministers of holy communion on a habitual (weekly) basis. the laity would revolt. many don’t even know that the pope has issued such a document saying this becuase the hierarchy are afraid of the implications. many in the hierarchy are concerned about what to do since the pope revoked the indult for american parishes to allow EMHCs to purify vessels. why else wouldn’t we have already seen these changes take effect? why delay? the answer is obvious. it’s US.

i think we can agree that it is good to learn from the past so that we do not repeat the same things.
Click to expand...
I must, then, again ask, “Who are these weak, wet rag, yellow-bellied Bishops who are afraid to stand for what is right. Has Christ lifted His promise from them?”

Who are these Bishops that are so ineffective, that they can’t teach?

Where then do we draw the line? The logical conclusion of your answer is–ultimately-- allowing birth control, abortion, etc. If the Bishops in America are so weak (which is what you are, in effect, saying at the end of the day) that they fear the loss of the masses because of Altar Girls and Communion in the Hand, are they really going to stand up for the humanity of the unborn? How many walked away from Christ when He taught He is the Bread of Life?

No, I am not, with all respect and fraternity, not buying this explanation at all.
 
AlexV said:
Chrismyster’s posts are outrageous.

In the Roman Rite, Communion on the tongue is normative; Communion in the hand is by Indult.

When I received my First Communion, we were told we COULD NOT receive on the tongue. Since then, I’ve been told to receive in the hand, not the tongue, at dozens of Novus Ordo Masses in my life, in different locales.

So spare us the criticism of a child who exercises their RIGHT to receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
🙂
 
AJV said:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~the5thd/welcome_files/Crystal Ball.gif

Hmmmmm (waving hands) …I predict that this thread will shortly descend into yet another argument.

Perhaps we should have virtual popcorn and snacks- that would make it even more exciting.

.
Click to expand...
…and, after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruith of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ!!!
 
thechrismyster said:
Bishops, Cardinals and Popes have all supported receiving in the hand. millions of Catholic receive in the hand every day.

why would my 9 year old be better than that? is she enlightened as to the purity of her own Eucharistic worthiness in ways i don’t understand? if it’s not a problem for the Church to receive in the hand, and is a problem for my 9 year old… then i need to shape the thinking of my child, not the Church. Not that the action of receiving on the tounge is bad, but to intentionally shun one for the other shows bad Catholic formation.

such a blatant attitude is a symptom of a larger character flaw in the child.
Click to expand...
It’s also perfectly legal to recieve on the tongue.

This accusation of a “Character Flaw” in a 9 year old child for wanting to recieve on the tongue is offensive.
 
Originally Posted by maurin
However, I do have a special love for receiving in the hand. As a matter of fact, I believe that receiving in the hand may just pre-date reception on the tongue.
It will take me a while folks, but I can find the documentation. It says something along the lines of “you shall make a throne of your right hand, resting in your left…”
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by maurin
Here is the documentation from 350 AD:
Click to expand...
catholicfaithandreason.or…neucharist.htm
scroll down to the second to last paragraph on the first page.
** I am interested in everyone’s thoughts**. I hope we all remain true to Christ’s Sacred Heart by having a rational and respectful conversation about His Most Blessed Sacrament!!!
…
maurin
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t care which way we receive-T or H…kneel or stand…1 species or 2…in the local Byzantine rite we stand & tincture…

I’ll give you some thoughts of popes:

Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000], p. 82:
“As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only [ancient] antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way.”

** MEDIATOR DEI Pius XII 1947AD**
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings;

If this doesn’t sound downright prophetic on "straying from the straight path" , what is it?

This all gets selectively goofy. I mean, the Churches of Christ think Organs in liturgy are anathema because…well, they did not use them in 60AD!
Of course, the Last Supper used a common chalice, so, there are church splits over “1 cuppers” & “many paper cuppers”.

Pius XII has it right…as usual.
 
rykell,

in my last post, i tried to make the clear distinction between doctrinal deviations and deviations in disciplines. i apologize if i was not clear. sometimes i do that.

the pope and bishops do not have the authority to allow contraception or women’s ordination, any more than they have the authority to allow abortion or mass murder. this violates the natural law. the laity could threaten mass murder, but even then the bishops and pope couldn’t allow these things.

on matters of practice, the church has stated the norms. the church has the authority to allow deviations, or “indults” from the norm. the liturgy comes under the jurisdiction of the Holy See, and the Holy See has the right to govern the practice of the liturgy. therefore, the church has the right to allow communion in the hand, but it didn’t want to. the laity persisted, and the hierarchy decided that it wasn’t worth the fight. whether or not they regret their decision, i don’t know.

that’s my point.

one person who agrees with much of what I have already posted is fr. peter stranvinskas, a loyal priest who has many doctorates, has spoken on Catholic Answers Live, makes tapes for St. Joseph’s Communications, edits the Catholic Answer Magazine (now “The Catholic Response”), works in the diocese of Lincoln under Bp. Bruskewitz, speaks at CUF conferences, regularly deals with issues surrounding the proper implementation of Vatican II, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top