Communion on hand

[ncjohn]

Hi John,

I don’t want to add fuel to the fire. . I certainly understand what you are trying to say, I agree for the most part, and I sympathize with your frustration, but maybe you might be overstating your position somewhat in the quoted portion above?

While it is clear to me (and you!) that one can’t say that x or y proposed and allowed by the Church is inherently irreverent, I don’t think it is as clear to me that there can’t be any difference in reverence in the different options proposed for the faithful.

Likewise with merit or artistry, while it is clear to me that one could not say that hymns in one language or another are without any merit, it doesn’t seem clear to me that the Church contemplates the idea that there can be no distinction in the artistic merit, musical worthiness, or transcendence of different modes of expression.

Certainly all the Church proposes is good, but could there still not be a heirarchy of goods? What do you think?

God Bless,
VC

That is why I put the italicized “inherent” in those statements.

I fully realize and support that we should be familiar with Latin and that it should be familiar to the faithful. I fully understand and support that Chant has great beauty and should be familiar to the faithful.

But to the best of my knowledge, and I am always open to correction, the Church nowhere indicates that a Latin hymn is objectively better than a contemporary hymn. And I think we can all agree that badly done Chant or an off-key Ave Maria is something to cringe at.

Is there a hierarchy of “goods”? If there’s a list of them, I’ve not seen it. To me, within the options that the Church has offered, it becomes a matter of how a particular individual and culture feels most called to God. Transcendence is only transcendence if it affects all individuals in the most positive way. Since these things are by their nature subjective, I cannot in any way see an ability to classify one as transcendent at the expense of another. God is just way too big for that.

Ideally there should be all options available to all parishes so that each individual within the parish could most clearly hear God’s call in the way they most easily recognize it. In practice, especially in rural areas like where I am, the predominant culture within the parish is unfortunately most likely to set the “tone”. Of course sometimes a new priest coming in will overrule the dominant culture, which is usually a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Somewhere there has to be a balance so that all can be fed even though none of us are going to get everything that we might like.

Some here might think that I’m the enemy and that I’m opposed to traditional liturgy. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I fully support it for anyone who feels called to it, while simultaneously asking for the same right for those who prefer one of the other options that the Church offers. I see no need for the sniping and condescension that is occuring over subjective preferences. I truly want it to be believed that they will know we are Christians by the way we love each other.

Peace to ou VC,

 

[Walking_Home]

…
To take as an example, communion in the hand. It’s not a sin because the Church cannot allow, cannot permit, is incapable of permitting, a discipline that would lead the faithful astray (that doesn’t mean that people cannot do something sinful BY receiving in the hand, but they can do the same thing by receiving on the tongue). In saying that it’s a sin (and you said you didn’t mean to say that and I accept that), you’ve set yourself up against the Church. And the question that I would have to ask is this: by what authority do you do so?

.

---

Here our late Pope specifically refers to–receiving in the hand.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

 

[palmas85]

And all of this has what to do with what?

I believe that one has the option of which way to receive communion. The Church agrees

I believe that one can legitimately prefer an N.O. Mass over a TLM and that there is no inherent difference in reverence. The Church agrees.

I believe that I can prefer more contemporary music rather than Latin Hymns, while not at all disparaging Latin hymns, and that there is nothing inherently better about one or the other. The Church agrees.

I believe it is fine for a woman to wear a head covering–or not to–at her option. The Church agrees.

I believe it is ok to use EMHC’s where there is a true need. The Church agrees.

Yet on every one of these issues, people are taken apart over which subjective preference they have, and more often than not the “taking apart” is being done by those calling themselves “traditionalists”.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t equate a “cafeteria mentality” with any of those things. I have nowhere called for or supported any of the things you noted above, but addressed only the subjective preferences for which the Church offers options. If someone is advocating that those options are not legitimate, and that the Church is wrong in even allowing them, the yes, maybe that is an indication of being “behind the times, stuck in a pre-Vatican II mentality” because while they may have a preference for “tradition”, they are not in line with Church teaching.

I agree with you. And i will go so far as to say that many of the things that one finds wrong at a Pauline Mass may be aberrations.

But I’ve seen these things for 40 years now, and they keep happening and keep getting worse and more and more far out and the only thing they have in common is that they were done in the context of a Pauline Mass.
**
WHY??**

What is it about the Pauline Rite that seems almost to encourage this individualistic behavior? If it did not so encourage, then why do things as described keep happening? There has to be a reason my friend. There must be. Just as there must be some reason to have 5 Extraordinary Ministers for a congregation of 30 or so people, as I saw this morning, or a Priest who feels it is OK to dress up in a Dinosaur costume to celebrate the Mass.

At what point do the aberrations cease? You tell me.

 

[tassitus]

…This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

Amen!

 

[ncjohn]

I agree with you. And i will go so far as to say that many of the things that one finds wrong at a Pauline Mass may be aberrations.

But I’ve seen these things for 40 years now, and they keep happening and keep getting worse and more and more far out and the only thing they have in common is that they were done in the context of a Pauline Mass.
**
WHY??**

What is it about the Pauline Rite that seems almost to encourage this individualistic behavior? If it did not so encourage, then why do things as described keep happening? There has to be a reason my friend. There must be. Just as there must be some reason to have 5 Extraordinary Ministers for a congregation of 30 or so people, as I saw this morning, or a Priest who feels it is OK to dress up in a Dinosaur costume to celebrate the Mass.

At what point do the aberrations cease? You tell me.

I guess I’m fortunate in that in all the places I’ve attended masses, I’ve never encountered the kinds of things you are describing. Even when I lived in south Florida, and attended Mass at many different parishes, I never ran into anything really unusual.

While I doubt that there is a way to prove it Palmas, I really don’t think that it is the Pauline Mass that brings out these things. I think it is nothing more than a reflection of the society that we live in. In this country, and in Europe too for that matter, we have cultures built on individualism that were unleashed into “freedom” during the 60’s and 70’s.

When coupled with extensive financial prosperity, great mobility, and the loss of the small Catholic community, there was no longer the type of reinforcement we had previously, which lent itself to passing down traditions and was more accountable by very virtue of living around the same people you worked with and went to church with.

That, coupled with lots of other influences from declining Catholic education to decreased vocations, in my mind led to a loss of Catholic identity and a loss of a sense of the sacred. When you combine that with the lure of other religions being willing to do unusual things to try to make things relevant, and the onslaught of New Age type thinking, I think that a certain amount of panic set in and some people started trying to do things to make the Church more “attractive”.

As to why it shows up more in the Pauline Mass, as I’ve said before, those who are cultural Catholics and those just meeting their “Sunday obligation” are almost surely more likely to attend an N.O. Mass. And correspondingly, in an attempt to get them involved in some way, I think there have been way too many attempts to make things attractive to that segment, often at the expense of reverence.

I think the Holy See has recognized that and appears to be taking steps (possibly seeming too slow) to curb the true abuses while leaving enough flexibility to allow people who are called to God in different ways to do so. The documents like RS and the recent one on purifying vessels are incremental steps. I think that as the obvious visible things are dealt with, and a greater sense of reverence starts to occur, that people will see the value in it and the movement will pick up steam in that direction.

Somehow though we all need to work together to bring that about instead of sniping at each other and confusing the heck out of the people in the pews who just shake their heads in wonderment. Because in the end, it is the message of Love God completely, and your neighbor as yourself, that not only has to be preached, but modeled if people are going to see the beauty of the gospel message. And if we’re picking at each other that message sure isn’t going to get modeled.

I do see light at the end of the tunnel. I look at our parish and top to bottom I see people devoted to God and the Church. Our Mass may not pass the purity test that some here would like to see, but there is a degree of reverence and devotion that I’ll match against anyone’s. Does that mean I think that ours is the best or only way? Heck no. My former parish has gone exactly the other direction, and is a wonderful haven for those who prefer the “traditional”. Both are needed and both are important if the Word Made Flesh is to move in this world.

It’s not going to be easy. Prosperous people have a hard time opening their full hands to accept God’s gifts. Overcoming that is to me the biggest obstacle. But I agree with you fully that we won’t get them back by selling them “God light”. Only modeling of the joy of the gospel message can overcome that darkness. And it will take all of us to do that.

Wanna partner up??

Peace,

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
…This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.


Amen!

---

Now–how about that. Those who receive with reverence—trump–the deplorable lack of respect to our Lord.

 

[pnewton]

SInce this is a re-hash thread, I don’t mind interjecting my POV again. Realize that this is a subjective opinion.

Sometimes traditional cradle catholics come across as if the church is an exclusive club and there is resentment to protestant like me who have converted. I would think that have conversion to Catholicism would be a good thing.

In keeping with my upbringing, just like some of you do not know how we can stand to touch the body of Christ, I do not understand how those that receive on the tongue can approach that same body without the head bowed. It really is a matter of how we are raised and I deeply am grateful for the option to receive in the hand, because when I receive communion before the altar and priest, the last thing I want to do is lift up my eyes so I can receive on the tongue. That has always seemed less reverant to me.

I was only recently able to understand my preference for the nand recently. I have needed to receive on the tongue because I was carrying a child. Prudence still must override my personal preference, as must obedience if the discipline changes.

 

[kleary]

Do you know for a fact that the number was much different in pre-Vatican 2 days? There have probably been Popes who didn’t believe in the Real Presence, you know, or at least not in transubstantiation. It’s not an easy doctrine and I think plenty of Catholics at all points of history haven’t accepted it.

That is totally innacurate. Please provide proof that any one Pope ever believed contrary to what the Catholic Church defined infallibly at Trent. For any pope or priest to not believe in Transubstantiation AT ANY TIME would invalidate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that they must offer to God in reparation for sin.

Ken

 

[kleary]

ABSOLUTELY incorrect! Go back and read the document.

I am not claiming the Church cannot change practices. The church can change practices. I was referring to what you claimed and I believe I can sum it up here:

If anyone claims that Communion in the hand is an impious or sacreligious practice then they are “anathema” in accordance with the 22n’d session of the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent saw in its day many things- the abolition of the offertory prayers which Luther himself said “wreaked of oblation”, changing the altar into a table and facing the people with the Canon changed and prayed aloud and COMMUNION IN THE HAND.

The Council responded to these things and I quote:

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

It is CLEAR from above that Trent is referring to the Tridentine Mass above. Now to the Canon which you are referring to:

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

Again Trent is referring to the context of their day- namely the Traditional Latin Mass and all the practices associated with it THAT THE PROTESTANTS HAD TO CHANGE in order to teach their heretical doctrines.

Communion in the hand was not something the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments came up with first of all, it was an abuse that began in the 1950’s which is a proven fact. You are acting like Communion in the hand is a practice that the Church uses to foster piety and devotion but it in no way does that. the facts speak for themselves. I only wish I could type in all 30 plus pages of Archbishop Bugnini’s section where he goes into detail concerning how Communion in the hand became an allowed practice. Maybe you should read that book written by the head of the Consillium that was responsible for the “reform”.

Ken

 

[LilyM]

That is totally innacurate. Please provide proof that any one Pope ever believed contrary to what the Catholic Church defined infallibly at Trent. For any pope or priest to not believe in Transubstantiation AT ANY TIME would invalidate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that they must offer to God in reparation for sin.

Ken

Umm … yeah … and they are and were all given the polygraph test and the mind probe before they are or were ordained priest or crowned Pope. Of course if it’s a required belief of the Church they aren’t necessarily going to shout it from the rooftops that they don’t believe. Doesn’t mean they all have.

Do the math - 60% of folks in the pews currently don’t believe in the Real Presence, presumably there has always been a significant percentage that doesn’t - yet 100% of all Popes and priests have? C’mon!

And sad to say, of course it does make the sacraments invalid of those that don’t. Although possibly the doctrine of ecclesia suppliet covers some of them if not all.

 

[kleary]

“Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

We take, we eat.

And we are greatful.

Peace all.

You sound like the liberals who claim Communion on the Tongue should be alolished in order to be more “Bible Accurate”. Note Jesus is again talking to His Bishops here.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Because having some one elses fingers touch my tongue repulses me. Also, the thought of their fingers touching so many other tongues and then touching mine, also repulses me. I think receiving on the tongue is a filthy practice and it looks irreverant if anything.

Jesus told his Apostles, “take and eat” not “stick out your tongue and suck on this.”

Jim

:banghead: Use Canon VII here Kirk.

Anyway in response to this the priest is properly trained to place the Host on the tongue of the communicant so that his fingers never touch ANYTHING but the Sacred Host. In fact in the TLM the priest, from the moment of the Lavabo until the Ablutions never touches anything with his forefinger or thumb which are constantly held together even when he is turning the pages of the Missal.

Ken

 

[tassitus]

“Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

We take, we eat.

And we are greatful [sic - ].

You sound like the liberals who claim Communion on the Tongue should be alolished in order to be more “Bible Accurate”. Note Jesus is again talking to His Bishops here.

That’s funny, I meant to quote the priest speaking to the congregation…
Have you not been to Mass in awhile?

(On second thought, that’s not very nice of me, I take it back).

But I don’t think you should read so much into my comments (if you knew me, you’d not consider me very liberal at all). I receive on the tongue when I am carrying my daughter, and have never once thought it irreverent. Or even out of the ordinary!

Peace all.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am not claiming the Church cannot change practices. The church can change practices. I was referring to what you claimed and I believe I can sum it up here:

If anyone claims that Communion in the hand is an impious or sacreligious practice then they are “anathema” in accordance with the 22n’d session of the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent saw in its day many things- the abolition of the offertory prayers which Luther himself said “wreaked of oblation”, changing the altar into a table and facing the people with the Canon changed and prayed aloud and COMMUNION IN THE HAND.

The Council responded to these things and I quote:

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

It is CLEAR from above that Trent is referring to the Tridentine Mass above. Now to the Canon which you are referring to:

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

Again Trent is referring to the context of their day- namely the Traditional Latin Mass and all the practices associated with it THAT THE PROTESTANTS HAD TO CHANGE in order to teach their heretical doctrines.

I very, VERY seriously doubt that the Church views it this way, still less that the Fathers at Trent would have said that it only applied to their time or the Mass St. Pius V promulgated. I’ve read this passage cited by priests and apologists against the claim that the Pauline Rite is invalid or wrong (to give the CONTEXT that they were involved in) and you are the only “traditionalist” who has ventured to say that it applies only to this historical period and context. That’s not the traditional understanding of the Church. It’s very clear. I’m not saying you have to like Communion in the hand, I’m saying that those who state that it leads to impiety are incorrect according to Trent.

Do you have those links. I’m interested in the larger context of them (St. Basil and the 2 popes).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

:banghead: Use Canon VII here Kirk.

Anyway in response to this the priest is properly trained to place the Host on the tongue of the communicant so that his fingers never touch ANYTHING but the Sacred Host. In fact in the TLM the priest, from the moment of the Lavabo until the Ablutions never touches anything with his forefinger or thumb which are constantly held together even when he is turning the pages of the Missal.

Ken

The reception of Holy Communion on the tongue cannot lead anyone into impiety. There.

 

[gmarie21]

The most irreverent I have heard of someone receiving on the hand is when the person doesn’t immediately place the Eucharist in their mouth. During major Feast days, my dad, along with other KofCs go to the National Shrine to Usher and stop those few who try to steal Jesus instead of placing Him in their mouths. That is the worst I’ve heard. The second worst is when (and I will have to sadly say that I too was guilty of this next one when I was a child) a person keeps the Eucharist in their hand and then dips it into the cup of blood. B/c of that last experience, I’m greatful that my parish doesn’t offer the cup of blood to all the parishoners.

 

[pnewton]

The second worst is when (and I will have to sadly say that I too was guilty of this next one when I was a child) a person keeps the Eucharist in their hand and then dips it into the cup of blood. B/c of that last experience, I’m greatful that my parish doesn’t offer the cup of blood to all the parishoners.

Eek!! That would be self communion, I think. In any case, I think the blame should go to whoever is administering the Sacred Blood for allowing it.

 

[palmas85]

I guess I’m fortunate in that in all the places I’ve attended masses, I’ve never encountered the kinds of things you are describing. Even when I lived in south Florida, and attended Mass at many different parishes, I never ran into anything really unusual.

While I doubt that there is a way to prove it Palmas, I really don’t think that it is the Pauline Mass that brings out these things. I think it is nothing more than a reflection of the society that we live in. In this country, and in Europe too for that matter, we have cultures built on individualism that were unleashed into “freedom” during the 60’s and 70’s.

When coupled with extensive financial prosperity, great mobility, and the loss of the small Catholic community, there was no longer the type of reinforcement we had previously, which lent itself to passing down traditions and was more accountable by very virtue of living around the same people you worked with and went to church with.

That, coupled with lots of other influences from declining Catholic education to decreased vocations, in my mind led to a loss of Catholic identity and a loss of a sense of the sacred. When you combine that with the lure of other religions being willing to do unusual things to try to make things relevant, and the onslaught of New Age type thinking, I think that a certain amount of panic set in and some people started trying to do things to make the Church more “attractive”.

As to why it shows up more in the Pauline Mass, as I’ve said before, those who are cultural Catholics and those just meeting their “Sunday obligation” are almost surely more likely to attend an N.O. Mass. And correspondingly, in an attempt to get them involved in some way, I think there have been way too many attempts to make things attractive to that segment, often at the expense of reverence.

I think the Holy See has recognized that and appears to be taking steps (possibly seeming too slow) to curb the true abuses while leaving enough flexibility to allow people who are called to God in different ways to do so. The documents like RS and the recent one on purifying vessels are incremental steps. I think that as the obvious visible things are dealt with, and a greater sense of reverence starts to occur, that people will see the value in it and the movement will pick up steam in that direction.

Somehow though we all need to work together to bring that about instead of sniping at each other and confusing the heck out of the people in the pews who just shake their heads in wonderment. Because in the end, it is the message of Love God completely, and your neighbor as yourself, that not only has to be preached, but modeled if people are going to see the beauty of the gospel message. And if we’re picking at each other that message sure isn’t going to get modeled.

I do see light at the end of the tunnel. I look at our parish and top to bottom I see people devoted to God and the Church. Our Mass may not pass the purity test that some here would like to see, but there is a degree of reverence and devotion that I’ll match against anyone’s. Does that mean I think that ours is the best or only way? Heck no. My former parish has gone exactly the other direction, and is a wonderful haven for those who prefer the “traditional”. Both are needed and both are important if the Word Made Flesh is to move in this world.

It’s not going to be easy. Prosperous people have a hard time opening their full hands to accept God’s gifts. Overcoming that is to me the biggest obstacle. But I agree with you fully that we won’t get them back by selling them “God light”. Only modeling of the joy of the gospel message can overcome that darkness. And it will take all of us to do that.

**Wanna partner up??
**
Peace,

Why not. I’ve had partners that I didn’t agree with totally before but we always managed to work together:

I say lets do it:thumbsup:

Merry Christmas and may the Lord bless you and yours

 

[MusicMan]

Again Trent is referring to the context of their day- namely the Traditional Latin Mass and all the practices associated with it THAT THE PROTESTANTS HAD TO CHANGE in order to teach their heretical doctrines.

No. The Council of Trent was referring to the Mass. There was no “TLM” or “NO” in those days. There was just the Mass. There is also no “TLM” or “NO” today. There is just the Mass. You and your traditionalist compatriots attend the Mass celebrated according to the Missal of 1962. I attend the Mass celebrated according to the current Missal. In the end, we’re both attending the Mass.

“TLM” and “NO” are false terms, created to divide the Church.

The most ironic part of this discussion is that traditionalists are using the fact that Communion in the hand is allowed by indult as an argument against allowing the practice. Your permission to attend a Mass that is not part of the current Missal is also allowed by an indult.

 

[ncjohn]

Why not. I’ve had partners that I didn’t agree with totally before but we always managed to work together:

I say lets do it:thumbsup:

Merry Christmas and may the Lord bless you and yours

Cool!!

I’ve been told that I’m really not a bad guy once I’m bound and gagged and locked up in the basement.

May all God’s blessing be with you, and with all of us.