Communion on hand

[tassitus]

Do you feel that a Priest by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders is any different than we as the laity? ** What? Is this a trick question. Quite different from laity, as if that needs saying. **Or is he just another guy? **Excuse me? **And do you feel that the real presence of the Lord is present in the Eucharist. **100% sure of it. **Anxiously awaiting your reply. You got it.

Peace all.

 

[LilyM]

The Church has always taught that Christ ordained the Apostles at the last supper, when He commanded them to “Do this in memory of Me.” So, that was before they received.

Yes, they became priests when he said those words - what makes you think that it was before they ate? He could very easily have said them afterwards.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s a subjective opinion. Reception in the hand is not objectively less reverent than reception on the tongue. And AGAIN, why don’t we show the MAXIMUM of reverence and go down the aisle to Communion on our knees. People cross the entire plaze before the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe on their knees.

If people want to be fully reverent, the solution is obvious - don’t go to Mass ​

It’s far too holy, and so are all the sacraments - someone who was really reverent would not pray (what impertinence for a sinner to do *that *!), communicate (even worse, if possible), or engage in any religious activity whatever.

For reverence, take as examples all those people who abstain from attending Mass They don’t receive at all - not even on the tongue.

That is the logic of not receiving in the hand because it is alleged to be irreverent ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am rather new to this forum, and just back into the Church after many, many years away. I am not now able to receive communion, and cherish my one hour a week of Eucharistic Adoration. So perhaps I have a different perspective from those of you able to receive our Lord, daily if you so wish (do you realize what I blessing this is?). What I want to ask all of you is whether THIS TYPE OF BICKERING IS REALLY THE WAY YOU GOOD PEOPLE INTEND TO SPEND YOUR TIME?

Read again the sixth chapter of the gospel of St. John, and then come back here and argue with one another about “tongue” versus “hand”. As if the God-made flesh of our hands is in any way different from the God-made flesh of our tongues! Please accept your preference as just that, your personal preference. And leave others theirs, taking this bit of sage advice:

I mean have you ever considered what becomes of the host after even the “most reverent” reception on the tongue? One hour after communion, two hours, three? If this hand/tongue issue was as important as these posts make it out to be, surely we would have had more instruction than that given in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 (all I could find for now).

And regarding any possible crumbs of the host that are not consumed, Does their existence in any way take away from the glory of our God? Do you imagine our Lord feeling spited, aghast at the fact that particles of Him are loose in the world, HIS WORLD? Who’s to say it is not a joy for Him to be physically present among us, on our hands, our clothing, on the pews of his churches, in the carpeting, the soil outside the Church, carried into our daily lives (and perhaps tracked into the Protestant churches!). If this occurs, in what way does this take away from Him?

May the world be filled with Him, I say. And let’s focus on the issues that matter.

Thanks for letting me rant, and

Peace all.

“Amen” to all that ​

 

[tassitus]

If people want to be fully reverent, the solution is obvious - don’t go to Mass ​

Ha! I must say, I am *really *starting to like this person!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well for one they didn’t have nice neatly cut round wafers of bread back then. Maybe they all had to come to a more fuller understanding of things. We see definite progress in the early Church to get away from the in the hand practice. And I do find condemnation of the practice in the early church.

Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” Memoriale Domini, 8].

Ken

You STILL haven’t provided the links I requested (the two early popes and St. Basil). I’m in the process of trying to locate a timeline on the different parts of the Mass on a site maintained by a traditionalist Catholic group that admits it was a practice of the early Church, but I’m unable to locate it right now. Our fellow member Gelsbern was the one who first brought it to my attention. I’ll post the link when I’m able.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If people want to be fully reverent, the solution is obvious - don’t go to Mass ​

It’s far too holy, and so are all the sacraments - someone who was really reverent would not pray (what impertinence for a sinner to do *that *!), communicate (even worse, if possible), or engage in any religious activity whatever.

For reverence, take as examples all those people who abstain from attending Mass They don’t receive at all - not even on the tongue.

That is the logic of not receiving in the hand because it is alleged to be irreverent ##

I’ve actually suggested this: that we stand out in the parking lot, where there is not danger of profaning anything, while Mass is going on.

We are capable of over sacralizing the Sacred Species to the point that They will no longer be used for what our Lord intended: to be consumed for our salvation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Reception in the hand has a huge amount to do with catechesis as improper catechesis combined with a visual reinforcement leads to propagation of the heretical beliefs. If the actions don’t match the heretical catechesis then there would be a conflict and it would raise questions about what is really true.

In Christ
Scylla

One more time: the Church cannot promote or permit anything that leads to impiety…and heretical belief is, at the very least, impious.

You don’t have to receive in the hand, you know. You’re perfectly free to rec. on the tongue.

My 5000th post. Arguing about communion in the hand .

 

[LilyM]

I’ve actually suggested this: that we stand out in the parking lot, where there is not danger of profaning anything, while Mass is going on.

We are capable of over sacralizing the Sacred Species to the point that They will no longer be used for what our Lord intended: to be consumed for our salvation.

AMEN! Christ said ‘take and eat’ - not ‘take and eat but only let others receive it on the tongue and whoever drops even a microscopic crumb will go straight to heck!’

I think we’re over-theorising just a little.

 

[LilyM]

One more time: the Church cannot promote or permit anything that leads to impiety…and heretical belief is, at the very least, impious.

You don’t have to receive in the hand, you know. You’re perfectly free to rec. on the tongue.

My 5000th post. Arguing about communion in the hand .

Guess what, your 10,000th (and I sincerely hope you stick around long enough to reach those lofty heights) will probably be spent the same way. Welcome to your future, Kirk :bigyikes:

 

[palmas85]

Peace all.

Not a trick question at all. Many who see no problem with receiving in the hand believe that there is no distinction between the priest and the laity thats all. You know every man a priest and all that. Why get offended? Second, you seemed very non chalant, heck oblivious to the sacriliege of the body of Christ being strewn about on the floor. . In fact, as you said, if I remember correctly, Christ might enjoy being amongst us, around us etc. That sounded very odd for someone who professes belief in the Real Presence, thats all. Again why get so testy? Chill out man it’s all good.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not a trick question at all. Many who see no problem with receiving in the hand believe that there is no distinction between the priest and the laity thats all. You know every man a priest and all that. Why get offended? Second, you seemed very non chalant, heck oblivious to the sacriliege of the body of Christ being strewn about on the floor. . In fact, as you said, if I remember correctly, Christ might enjoy being amongst us, around us etc. That sounded very odd for someone who professes belief in the Real Presence, thats all. Again why get so testy? Chill out man it’s all good.

Palmas: I have indeed heard such absurdities as you speak of uttered, but only by radical leftist wing-nut nuns and campus ministers, not by your ordinary Catholics in the pews. Even LIBERAL priests don’t say it, because basically the’re just as elitist as they accuse the orthodox or the traditionalists of being.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Guess what, your 10,000th (and I sincerely hope you stick around long enough to reach those lofty heights) will probably be spent the same way. Welcome to your future, Kirk :bigyikes:

Thank you, Lily! I’m looking forward to it (again with the ).

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

I’ve actually suggested this: that we stand out in the parking lot, where there is not danger of profaning anything, while Mass is going on.

We are capable of over sacralizing the Sacred Species to the point that They will no longer be used for what our Lord intended: to be consumed for our salvation.

If your trying to tell me that Our Lord intended to be passed around like a bowl of Ritz Crackers to unordained hands as if he was little more than a post-Mass mint.

Then no…Id have to disagree with you.

And honestly…who knows…there probably will be plenty of oppurtunity to profane something in a Novus Ordo parking lot…

I just don’t see why…if you believe that the Host is a part of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that you (and not you specifically but those who recieve by the hand in general) would even want to touch the Host. To me…unbloody or not…it is the deepest and greatest mystery of the faith…and to handle it between your fingers (fingers that have not gone through the purifying rubrics of the Mass…nor recieved the Holy Spirirt in the Sacrament of Orders…) just cries out in every way as irreverent.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If your trying to tell me that Our Lord intended to be passed around like a bowl of Ritz Crackers to unordained hands as if he was little more than a post-Mass mint. **Yes, its obvious from all my posts that that is what I mean. I’m waiting for the Church to rediscover the ancient sacramental dip that she once discontinued. **

**Ordained has nothing to do with it, at this juncture or in apostolic/patristic times. It was the practice of the early Church. The Church had and has the authority to either permit it or deny it. **

Then no…Id have to disagree with you.

I just don’t see why…if you believe that the Host is a part of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that you (and not you specifically but those who recieve by the hand in general) would even want to touch the Host. To me…unbloody or not…it is the deepest and greatest mystery of the faith…and to handle it between your fingers (fingers that had not gone through the purifying rubrics of the Mass…nor recieved the Holy Spirirt in the Sacrament of Orders…) just cries out in every way as a sin.

Please, you’ve just said that the Church regularly allows a sinful practice. You’ve just done what Trent anathematized the doing of. You’ve just done the “mini pope” thing (a high school student at that, who knows better than Christ’s Church). And why was it not sinful in the first centuries of the faith? Why did not the Apostles forbid it?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Please, you’ve just said that the Church regularly allows a sinful practice. You’ve just done what Trent anathematized the doing of. You’ve just done the “mini pope” thing (a high school student at that, who knows better than Christ’s Church). And why was it not sinful in the first centuries of the faith? Why did not the Apostles forbid it?

I said the Church allows an irreverent practice not a sin.
I will continue and say that this irreverence can turn into a sin…not the sin of recieving on the hand but rather the sin of failing to respect the Eucharist.

Why is it not sinful in the first centuries of the faith? We could argue forever. You know as well as I that the Mass as we know it didnt even exist back then in its current form…Were talking about today. What is wrong today. What is an irreverent act today.

Are you saying that because no Pope published a statement on Birth Control…that it would have been okay (if it was available) back then?

Don’t resort to…“But he said this…” or…“But they were doing it!”

Sounds a bit like kindergarten excuses to me.

And this is the tenth time that ive seen you put down a Trad because of their age?

What makes you think you have any right to do so?

I could say your arguements dont work because you are old and out of your mind…but I dont (and im sure its not true anyway)

Why do I merit such uncharity because of my age.

Truly sir…you have offended me.

Just as you have offended my friends here on this forum…who together with me have crossed theological swords with you on many occasions.

I hope that you realize my age is something I could have kept hidden from you and those with a similar mind. But I had the idea that people were not so arrogant as to think years translates into wisdom…

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Please, you’ve just said that the Church regularly allows a sinful practice. You’ve just done what Trent anathematized the doing of. You’ve just done the “mini pope” thing (a high school student at that, who knows better than Christ’s Church). And why was it not sinful in the first centuries of the faith? Why did not the Apostles forbid it?

I did write that it was a sin…
I corrected myself and edited my original post. As well as stating above that it is an irreverent practice than can turn into a sin.

Which im sure you will read above before reading this anyway.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I said the Church allows an irreverent practice not a sin.
**Kindly look back to the post where you DID call it a sin. **

I will continue and say that this irreverence can turn into a sin…not the sin of recieving on the hand but rather the sin of failing to respect the Eucharist. **{Sigh} The Blessed Sacrament was secreted away in people’s mouths for nefarious purposes long ago. ANY action can be used for ill. **

Why is it not sinful in the first centuries of the faith? We could argue forever. You know as well as I that the Mass as we know it didnt even exist back then in its current form…Were talking about today. What is wrong today. What is an irreverent act today.** And the Church has said (by permitting it) that it’s not wrong today, not irreverent. **

Are you saying that because no Pope published a statement on Birth Control…that it would have been okay (if it was available) back then? **Now really, think about what you just said. The issue of communion in the hand is a DISCIPLINE, not a dogma, not doctrine, not a matter of faith and morals, as ABC is. If you don’t understand the difference, then your catechist needs to brush up on his or her instruction. **

And this is the tenth time that ive seen you put down a Trad because of their age?

What makes you think you have any right to do so? **What gives me the right? By entering the arena of discourse, they THEMSELVES give me the right. By arrogantly offering subjective opinion AND misinformation as fact, as history, as actual Church TEACHING, they give me the right. Their arrogant presumption is sitting in judgement on the Vicars of Christ on Earth begs to be corrected, to be put in its place. Who are YOU to sit in judegment of men who carry the heaviest burden imaginable? How arrogant! **

I could say your arguements dont work because you are old and out of your mind…but I dont (and im sure its not true anyway). **One thing IS true: I’m fairly sure of my facts before I rear up on my hind legs and shoot my mouth off. If I don’t know, I ask. AND I don’t get all my information from questionable sources that have an agenda. You can be sure of this, sinner though I may be, I attempt to think with the mind of the Church and submit myself to her authority. **

Why do I merit such uncharity because of my age. **I don’t regard it as lacking in charity. I’m glad I had adults in my life who told me,“Be quiet. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Don’t embarass yourself.” **

Truly sir…you have offended me. **Point to where I have FACTUALLY been incorrect. I can point to where YOU have been. **

Just as you have offended my friends here on this forum…who together with me have crossed theological swords with you on many occasions. **I’m simply not going to stand by and not defend the Church. If that means pointing out the obvious (that youthful arrogance often runs ahead of truth), then fine, I’ll point it out (as I did with your friends when they presumed to sit in judgement of the likes of Pope John Paul II, of happy memory. THAT offends me, that this one who bore that burden for so long and who bore it heroically and lovingly, should be subjected to the judgment of people whose skin hasn’t cleared up yet! So if you want to talk about offended, well…) **

I hope that you realize my age is something I could have kept hidden from you and those with a similar mind. But I had the idea that people were not so arrogant as to think years translates into wisdom…

**It’s a biblical principal that with years comes wisdom. But setting that aside, again, your positions are untenable from a factual point of view, from the point of what the Church actually teaches. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I did write that it was a sin…
I corrected myself and edited my original post. As well as stating above that it is an irreverent practice than can turn into a sin.

Which im sure you will read above before reading this anyway.

Admission of a mistake is long step on the road to maturity. Thank you.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

**It’s a biblical principal that with years comes wisdom. But setting that aside, again, your positions are untenable from a factual point of view, from the point of what the Church actually teaches. **

Hmn…
Did I deny that wisdom comes with time? No.
I am smarter now than I was at the age of five.

There is a difference between recognizing knowledge in those who have experienced more on this good earth…than using age as a weapon to throw at people in theological debate.

Im not going to argue with you about wether or not you were being charitable.

It is not my concern if you find yourself at fault or not.

I utilize an ancient priviliege of being ‘young’ the priviliege to be offended and to express my feelings of hurt.

Nothing hurts more than not being treated as an equal in the field that I love most…Catholicism.

I dont need to quote any sources to prove that point.

Im leaving this discussion.

Concerning charity…the charitable thing to do was to respond like a “grown-up” and try and manifest some sort of peaceful reply. But in answer to my protest to being degraded…you pile on more insults.

Well…we have seen who out of the two of us is being mature.