Communion on hand

[maryjk]

B/c of that last experience, I’m greatful that my parish doesn’t offer the cup of blood to all the parishoners.

I am grateful that my parish does offer the cup to all.

I cannot receive the host due to medical reasons, and without the cup, I would not receive at all.

People will find ways to abuse the body of Christ, no matter how we receive. People with receive in a state of mortal sin, no matter how we receive. People will casually receive, no matter how we receive.

In the US, people can receive it the hand. Unless or until the Pope changes that, they can receive in the hand. I don’t know why there is an argument about it.

 

[MrS]

People will find ways to abuse the body of Christ, no matter how we receive. People with receive in a state of mortal sin, no matter how we receive. People will casually receive, no matter how we receive.

In the US, people can receive it the hand. Unless or until the Pope changes that, they can receive in the hand. I don’t know why there is an argument about it.

It could be noted that 60 years after Luther posted his 95, there was a book published called 200 Meanings of This Is My Body … something like that…

In twenty years we can likely read 200 Ways to Personalize the Reception of His Body.

---

Pray for the bishops who tolerate this excess in individuality.

---

---

---

.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For any pope or priest to not believe in Transubstantiation AT ANY TIME would invalidate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. . .

Ken (kleary),

Although this might not be strictly on topic of this thread, if I understand you correctly, I don’t think your quote above is quite totally accurate.

According to my best understanding, a priest’s lack of belief in transubstantiation does not invalidate the consecration (and hence the Mass) for two reasons:

1. The Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon XI fixed as the minimum intention for validity as “at least of doing what the Church does”.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

It would seem to me that this intention “to do what the Church does” would make belief in transubstantiation sufficient, but not necessary.

The Roman Catechism, by way of explanation of the above Canon, states:

Since the ministers of the Sacraments represent in the discharge of their sacred functions, not their own, but the person of Christ. . .they validly perform and confer the Sacraments. . . provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration.

This is attested to by Aquinas, discussing intention of the minister, here:

[T]he minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament (III, 64, 8, obj. 2)

And further, Aquinas discusses the faith of the minister:
if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, obj. 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good. (III, 64, 9, Obj. 1)

1. The second reason is less substantial, but should be mentioned. Transubstantiation is a description (our best perhaps) of what happens at the Consecration. It describes, to the best of our ability, the process involved in confecting the sacrament by way of conversion. But the word (and concept) “transubstatiation” would be a relatively modern development. . . and those priests of the the first 1000 years certainly would have confected the Eucharist without an explicit belief in the process of Transubstantiation, properly so called.

LilyM,

LilyM:

And sad to say, of course it does make the sacraments invalid of those that don’t.

Again, my understanding is that it doesn’t make the sacraments invalid, for the above reasons.

LilyM:

Although possibly the doctrine of ecclesia supplet covers some of them if not all.

Ah, your instincts were correct, I think. Although I’m not sure we need an appeal ecclesia supplet (and, I’m not even sure this applicable in this case. . . I think the doctrine only applies jurisdiction and not other necessary elements). Rather, the intention required is “to do what the Church does” and this is implied by the use of proper matter and form.

What do you think? I almost have myself convinced.
God Bless,
VC

 

[Georgess]

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

In some of the Eastern Rites , communion is given by intinction - Host dipped in wine …

And somehow, it always seem / felt ’ right ’ …( as much as feelings are not to be the sole guide of our acceptance of truths )

And for a while , there was that little nagging doubts …as to which is more biblical …

Then … the endearing echo of those words of freedom …’ children’

Our Lord calls the disciples ’ children ’ at The Last Supper …just when He is about to share His very life with them …the same Lord who had called them ’ friends ’ earlier …now about to bring forth the children … in agony …and , ? like in the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception , He , in His omnipotence, who is able to set the sun back … bring forth the merits of The PASSION . to share of Himself …

In the spiritual Kingdom, whose rules are not of this world …

and grown ups can be born again…to become like children …to be fed …

A Church, fed and nourished by the faith and blood of saints and martyrs… being tended by The Spirit …into more of a Father relationship …that the children can have more of the peace from trust …

May be …our Universal Church , adopting such a way to show more revernce to The Eucharist , and more glory to the Father relationship , can bring in lot of graces …

avoid the confusion of options …any fear of being at someones displeasure - at such a sacred moment …

and even help the cause of unity , esp. if it avoids the problems from disrespect of The Eucharist …and who knows how great the blessings might be !

Since ours is a Church that do listen , to grant the wish of her children ( in matters where no sin involved ) as seen in the move to bring back the Latin Mass , hope this too would be looked at …

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It could be noted that 60 years after Luther posted his 95, there was a book published called 200 Meanings of This Is My Body … something like that…

In twenty years we can likely read 200 Ways to Personalize the Reception of His Body.

Pray for the bishops who tolerate this excess in individuality.

.

Excessive exageration (the bulwark and strength of some “traditionalist’s” arguments). The Latin Rite only has two ordinary ways of receiving Holy Communion, if you exclude intinction, which is the choice of the priest. Chosing between hand or tongue is hardly an “excess in individuality.”

 

[valient_Lucy]

That is correct one can receive either on the hand or tongue.

Amen. As a previous poster pointed out, a person who recieves communion in the hand and in a state of grace is far better than a person who recieves communion on the tongue in a state of mortal sin.
If a person’s conscience cannot allow them to recieve communion on the hand, then he should receive on the tongue.

 

[MrS]

Excessive exageration (the bulwark and strength of some “traditionalist’s” arguments). The Latin Rite only has two ordinary ways of receiving Holy Communion, if you exclude intinction, which is the choice of the priest. Chosing between hand or tongue is hardly an “excess in individuality.”

well… let’s see

Catagory A… on the tongue (OTT)
1- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head raised
2- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head bowed
3- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head raised
4- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head bowed, eyes open
5- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the host
6- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the priest
7- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person in front
8- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person next to you
9- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the people in the pew
10- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the EMHC
11- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes closed
12- OTT, standing in “procession”, standing tall
13- OTT, standing in “procession”, bow your head at the neck
14- OTT, standing in “procession”, bow at the waist
15- OTT, standing in “procession”, genuflect
16- OTT, standing in “procession”, kneel to receive
17- OTT, standing in “procession”, sign of the cross, standing
18- OTT, standing in “procession”, head for the EMHC for the precious blood…

Category B… in the hand (ITH)
1- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head raised
2- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head bowed
3- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head raised
4- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head bowed, eyes open
5- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the host
6- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the priest
7- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person in front
8- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person next to you
9- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the people in the pew
10- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the EMHC
11- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes closed
12- ITH, standing in “procession”, standing tall
13- ITH, standing in “procession”, bow your head at the neck
14- ITH, standing in “procession”, bow at the waist
15- ITH, standing in “procession”, genuflect
16- ITH, standing in “procession”, kneel to receive
17- ITH, standing in “procession”, sign of the cross, standing
18- ITH, standing in “procession”, head for the EMHC for the precious blood…

XXX OTT, standing in “procession”, head for the parking lot.​

#XXX+1, ITH standing in “procession”, head for the parking lot.

I think you get the idea… for too many, it’s not all about Him, sad to say.

.

 

[pnewton]

Excessive exageration (the bulwark and strength of some “traditionalist’s” arguments).

The above post by MrS supports this idea. He has split off some non-existent and non-relevent categories to pad the numbers. For example, bending at the neck? A profound bow is called for. One thing. Location of eyes? Why not include receiving with a tie or in a blouse as different ways. Head for the parking lot? Where is that in the GIRM?

Excessive exageration indeed!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

He probably does enjoy being among us, & with us - it is by His gift that we are made fit to come to Him & to enjoy His Presence Sounds like a very sensible suggestion​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is how this would pass,

It is very common in heterodox circles to promote the Universal Priesthood as pretty much the same as Ordained Priests. “We are all Priests, this is why we can receive in the hand and all can participate in the Mass”
This participation is thought of as everyone acting as Priest.

That last sentence is a good description of what Vatican 2 teaches. Since all Christians are priests, that is about orthodox as could be wanted. This is something clearly taught in the NT. Just in case that is not enough, Vatican II also teaches it.​

So instead of there being only one lot of priests (the men who stand before the altar) there are two different participations in the single & unique priesthood of Christ - by :

• the great mass of the faithful, commonly called the laity
• those of their number who have been chosen to stand before the altar
  The Real Priest in all this is Christ Himself, from Whom Alone comes the grace of the “common” & the (as it is called) “ministerial” priesthood. “Father” can no more confect the Eucharist of himself than any of us can. So there is difference, complementarity, unity - but no question of superior status. We don’t consecrate - but then neither, of himself, can any human priest; he can do so only by the grace of the Holy Spirit of Christ; for the Eucharist is not his, or ours, unless it is first & forever Christ’s.

The laity can’t play his part - & he can’t play ours. So no one is wronged, no one is left idle, & all have their part to play in the worship of their Heavenly Father, each according to the grace he (or she) has received ##

This also extends to allowing women to be priests, but first we need to allow all Priests to be married, then women.

I don’t have much time to type more, but just spend some time in these type parishes and you will see this widespread.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

The Mass can certainly be invalidated, but not by adherence to false doctrine on the part of the priest - if it interfered with his intention, so that he positively intended not to do what the Church intends (if, for example, he positively intended not to offer sacrifice), it would be invalid. But heresy on his part would not invalidate it. A validly ordained High Anglican is offering the Eucharist every bit as validly as the Pope - as do formerly Catholic priests who now belong to some other Church.​

 

[JKirkLVNV]

well… let’s see

Catagory A… on the tongue (OTT)
1- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head raised
2- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head bowed
3- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head raised
4- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head bowed, eyes open
5- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the host
6- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the priest
7- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person in front
8- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person next to you
9- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the people in the pew
10- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the EMHC
11- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes closed
12- OTT, standing in “procession”, standing tall
13- OTT, standing in “procession”, bow your head at the neck
14- OTT, standing in “procession”, bow at the waist
15- OTT, standing in “procession”, genuflect
16- OTT, standing in “procession”, kneel to receive
17- OTT, standing in “procession”, sign of the cross, standing
18- OTT, standing in “procession”, head for the EMHC for the precious blood…

Category B… in the hand (ITH)
1- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head raised
2- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head bowed
3- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head raised
4- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head bowed, eyes open
5- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the host
6- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the priest
7- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person in front
8- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person next to you
9- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the people in the pew
10- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the EMHC
11- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes closed
12- ITH, standing in “procession”, standing tall
13- ITH, standing in “procession”, bow your head at the neck
14- ITH, standing in “procession”, bow at the waist
15- ITH, standing in “procession”, genuflect
16- ITH, standing in “procession”, kneel to receive
17- ITH, standing in “procession”, sign of the cross, standing
18- ITH, standing in “procession”, head for the EMHC for the precious blood…

XXX OTT, standing in “procession”, head for the parking lot.​

#XXX+1, ITH standing in “procession”, head for the parking lot.

I think you get the idea… for too many, it’s not all about Him, sad to say.

.

As I said, extreme exaggeration, stock in trade for some “traditionalists” who cannot accept that the Church isn’t going to arrange things precisely to suit THEM. “All about Him” is a high and noble sentiment, but who set you in the place to determine what constitutes whether or not it’s “all about Him?”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m always going to defend the Church’s authority to order the discipline of the Sacraments, because without the Church’s Christ-given authority, well, we might as well be Protestants. There’s no point in having that authority if we can just hive off and do our own thing and it seems equally bad to beat each other over the head for exercising a liberty given by the Church.

Mostly what disturbs me by the tone of some of the posts in this thread (and others where the same proud, arrogant, “I-know-better-than-the-Church” attitude is exhibited) is NOT that some people advocate Communion in the hand. Pope John Paul II preferred it, I’m fairly certain, possible misquotes attributed to her notwithstanding, that Blessed Teresa of Calcutta also felt that this was the better mode. The point is they never seemed to seek to constrain the consciences of the faithful in this liberty given by the Holy See (and let’s face it, Pope John Paul the Great coold have, because the Holy See is, for all intents and purposes, the pope). That ALONE is what I find myself constantly rearing up on my hind legs to combat: this smug, pharisaical tone.

Nonetheless, here’s the deal: Rotten sinner that I am (and I am), I do constantly pray for Christ to conform my mind and my will to His Own. I try to listen and pay attention and draw closer (when my own will isn’t clamoring to have its own way, at any rate) to Him. I don’t wish to ever become the type of person where the argument is what matters, where “I’m right” is the ultimate end. So, in case I’m missing something, in case I need to listen in this and pay attention and draw closer, I will receive the Most Sacred Body on the tongue rather than in the hand.

This ISN’T an experiment (talk about irreverence to the Blessed Lord in the Sacrament). I’m not going to report on it. I’m doing it in the spirit of listening and paying attention only (I don’t think I wasn’t before, but God alone knows). I have not regularly rec. in this fashion before (though the monastery where I was received into the Church practices this method solely because they administer the Sacrament by intinction), not out of a sense of wanting “my way”, not out of a sense of it being “more about me, and less about Him” (it is frankly astonishing to me that any thoughtful Christian would actually posit that to other Catholics on THESE forums anyway, fequented by people who are generally quite serious about the faith), but because it was by receving in the hand that I was more able to receive our Lord in a recollected fashion, in an UNselfconscious state as opposed to worrying about HOW I received Him (by “how,” I mean the logistics of reception). But I will attempt to do this. I will attempt to listen and pay attention on this specific matter, from this Gaudette Sunday to the next Gaudette Sunday. I will do this as a prayer for a cessation (or at least a moderation) of the divisions in the Church.

As we draw closer to Christmas, I would like to say that I’m sorry if I have caused hurt or offense to anyone in our arguments about this or any other matter. I’m not sorry for defending what I believe to be right, I’m not sorry for defending the Church, but I am sorry if I have not sought first to speak in charity (that doesn’t mean I’m going to shut up).

 

[MrS]

As I said, extreme exaggeration, stock in trade for some “traditionalists” who cannot accept that the Church isn’t going to arrange things precisely to suit THEM. “All about Him” is a high and noble sentiment, but who set you in the place to determine what constitutes whether or not it’s “all about Him?”

you are so much fun to mess with,
I wish I could play poker with you, I could use the money,

Seriously though, the list was only to show the “extremes” of individuality… as opposed to the the uniformity of some “traditionalists”… those whom you seem to distain.

You are right, the Church is not going to be that precise… but with a utopia (unlikely) of good priests and bishops, it would not have to.

Anything short of “More of Him, Less of Me” leaves room for improvement,… by me or anyone,

 

[AJV]

well… let’s see

Catagory A… on the tongue (OTT)
1- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head raised
2- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head bowed
3- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head raised
4- OTT, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head bowed, eyes open
5- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the host
6- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the priest
7- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person in front
8- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person next to you
9- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the people in the pew
10- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes on the EMHC
11- OTT, standing in “procession”, eyes closed
12- OTT, standing in “procession”, standing tall
13- OTT, standing in “procession”, bow your head at the neck
14- OTT, standing in “procession”, bow at the waist
15- OTT, standing in “procession”, genuflect
16- OTT, standing in “procession”, kneel to receive
17- OTT, standing in “procession”, sign of the cross, standing
18- OTT, standing in “procession”, head for the EMHC for the precious blood…

Category B… in the hand (ITH)
1- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head raised
2- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands above the linen, head bowed
3- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head raised
4- ITH, kneeling at the altar rail, hands under the linen, head bowed, eyes open
5- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the host
6- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the priest
7- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person in front
8- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the person next to you
9- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the people in the pew
10- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes on the EMHC
11- ITH, standing in “procession”, eyes closed
12- ITH, standing in “procession”, standing tall
13- ITH, standing in “procession”, bow your head at the neck
14- ITH, standing in “procession”, bow at the waist
15- ITH, standing in “procession”, genuflect
16- ITH, standing in “procession”, kneel to receive
17- ITH, standing in “procession”, sign of the cross, standing
18- ITH, standing in “procession”, head for the EMHC for the precious blood…

XXX OTT, standing in “procession”, head for the parking lot.​

#XXX+1, ITH standing in “procession”, head for the parking lot.

I think you get the idea… for too many, it’s not all about Him, sad to say.

.

Come on, Mr. S…some of those are really trivial. Surely one can draw up a list for prior practise?

Kneel at the altar rail or kneel in another appropriate place but within the site of the altar where Mass is celebrated unless you have a dispensation
Use a white cloth fixed to the altar rail OR have it held by servers OR have the communicants hold a larger paten
Have the altar boy hold a paten under the chin but this is rendered unecessary by the last one
Eyes open, eyes closed, head bowed, head not bowed, private prayers at the rail, private prayers in your pew, sign of the cross, no sign of the cross, etc., etc. ,etc.

And this also allows for many variations, no? Not as many as now possibily, but still enough.

(and I have a question: the old Rituale Romanum prescribed the actions of the priest and the attending minister and clergy: nowhere does it say that the people receiving communion should kneel. Is there anything that does say that? In the Papal Masss, the attendants would receive Communion standing, and I remember reading of Parsch having his communicants receive standing and I don’t think he was censured for that)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

you are so much fun to mess with,
I wish I could play poker with you, I could use the money,

Seriously though, the list was only to show the “extremes” of individuality… as opposed to the the uniformity of some “traditionalists”… those whom you seem to distain.

You are right, the Church is not going to be that precise… but with a utopia (unlikely) of good priests and bishops, it would not have to.

Anything short of “More of Him, Less of Me” leaves room for improvement,… by me or anyone,

I try not to have disdain for anyone. And exageration is still exageration. Like abuses depicted as NORMS in the NO Mass, these things are offered hyperbollically to gain points in an argument. If the Church allowed every single thing you posit in your lists, then the faithful have the liberty to exercise that very liberty. You can urge differently for the sake of unity, but you aren’t the final arbiter of unity, and those who choose to do differently (within the confines of the legitimate discipline of the Church) are not automatically less devout, nor less Catholic, and no less reverent to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. They MAY be, but you’ve no objective way to ascertain that (and neither do I). And good priests and good bishops wouldn’t attempt to constrain the faithful where a liberty had been granted. Unity doesn’t have to mean everyone doing everything in exactly the same precise way. As for “less of me, more of Him,” I stated my position on that as regards my own life in my previous post.

I don’t play poker.

For our differences, we’re on the same page as far as your signature goes.

 

[netmilsmom]

The Mass can certainly be invalidated, but not by adherence to false doctrine on the part of the priest - if it interfered with his intention, so that he positively intended not to do what the Church intends (if, for example, he positively intended not to offer sacrifice), it would be invalid. But heresy on his part would not invalidate it. A validly ordained High Anglican is offering the Eucharist every bit as validly as the Pope - as do formerly Catholic priests who now belong to some other Church.​

Can I ask a favor?
Could you make your font a little bigger?
I’m having problems reading it.