Communion on the hand dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter COHiggins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novus Ordo Missae = Ordinary Form

NO or OF, it doesn’t matter. They are the same thing. Just like saying Tridentine Mass or TLM or EF. Calling a parish a novus ordo parish is not a slam unless the person saying it intends it as a slam. I say it for clarification because if anyone has followed any of my conversations enough they will hear me talking about experiences in novus ordo churches, TLM churches and now at a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church. So I use these terms to differentiate between the three.
 
You make a good point. It’s hard to say. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Vatican has a small file on this parish somewhere. I have lived in this area for the last 6 years now. In that time this parish has gone through 3 priests and just welcomed a 4th replacement. The parishioners will hold meetings to complain about the priest if he tries taking over the parish lol. Forget the fact that it “is” his parish. I don’t doubt that there are conservative novus ordo parishes out there that I would be just fine attending. In my personal experience attending diocesan/novus ordo churches in Illinois, then the ones here in California, I have yet to find one. But I’m not saying this as an attack. The Church everywhere is a mess right now.
 
SlavaIsusuChristu said:
NO or OF, it doesn’t matter. They are the same thing. Just like saying Tridentine Mass or TLM or EF. Calling a parish a novus ordo parish is not a slam unless the person saying it intends it as a slam. I say it for clarification because if anyone has followed any of my conversations enough they will hear me talking about experiences in novus ordo churches, TLM churches and now at a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church. So I use these terms to differentiate between the three.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there are no such things as Novus Ordo churches. It is actually insulting (at least to me) for someone to use that expression because it is totally incorrect.
There are Catholic churches which celebrate the OF.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
I still feel OF and EF are the most benign terms that maintain clarity (e.g., you prefer Latin Mass, do you? Yeah, I’m in the Latin Church, too. Oh, no…ours is said in English, but it’s definitely Latin.)
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly. When I have to use OF in real life nobody here would understand what it is. If I want to differentiate between Byzantine Liturgy, Eaf and OF it’s super hard… saying Latin Mass means EF here and I haven’t seen OF or NO used by laity ever. It’s kinda frustrating 😃

I agree that EF and OF are clearest. One can even celebrate OF in Latin- what then? But fact remains people use names they are familiar with. Not counting OF and EF, Novus Ordo is least confusing one out there…
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Novus Ordo is often used by those who denigrate the Ordinary Form.
Click to expand...
Well it is also how Liturgy was named when it was first promulgated. There are people who use it with good intentions… such as entirety of Church right after it was promulgated…

Name isn’t offensive in the least. After all, competent authorities named it that way. Abbreviation is a different story but that only works in English and still… benefit of doubt is a great thing.
 
Last edited:
During the covid, our bishop has required us to receive in the hand. Normally I do receive on the tongue, but I believe that obedience is the way to go here. I was so happy to be able to go to communion when the churches opened up that I put aside my own preferences. As soon as I can, I will go back to receiving on the tongue, but in the meantime, I will obey.
 
SlavaIsusuChristu said:
In my personal experience attending diocesan/novus ordo churches in Illinois, then the ones here in California, I have yet to find one. But I’m not saying this as an attack. The Church everywhere is a mess right now.
Click to expand...
So you’ve been to two churches in two dioceses and neither were acceptable to YOUR standards, which sound unrealistic by the comments you’ve made on this thread, so the whole Church everywhere is a mess. I’ve asked you before, have you been to my parish? Have you been to every single parish to know this?
 
In @SlavaIsusuChristu’s defense, the state of affairs in LA is indeed pretty sad. I’m sure there are a few solid parishes there but they are hard to find, and driving in LA traffic is required to get to them. To a slightly lesser degree it’s the same all through California. I’ve been to many while traveling.

Not sure about the entire state of Illinois, but in Chicago I had much better luck with churches I visited, though it was quite a few years ago now.
 
COHiggins said:
I no longer feel it acceptable to receive Communion on the hand, and receiving it on the tongue by unconsecrated hands seems just as bad.
Click to expand...
The Eucharist is perhaps the greatest gift we have ever been given.

Let’s run a “what if” scenario. You are in Church, it is Communion time, your bench is clear as those next to you have gone up to Communion, and you look up. Christ is standing there next to you, holding up a Host and says to you “The Body of Christ”.

Would you tell him “No thanks - I don’t receive in the hand”?

Just a question - I have asked it before, and have had some interesting response.
 
babochka said:
40.png
SlavaIsusuChristu:
I have personally witnessed it 5-6 times that I can think back on in the last 2 years we have been having to attend the NO
Click to expand...
End first poster

That is quite a lot, especially since you are probably deep in prayer during the distribution of Communion and actually spend very little time examining how others receive.
Click to expand...
End second poster

I think Babochla expressed my views.
 
LumineDiei said:
40.png
OrbisNonSufficit:
Name isn’t offensive in the least.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And those who have any modicum of appropriate manners, after being informed by multiple people in numerous threads on the forum (including clergy) will choose to use the term that is not overwhelming used to denigrate that form of the Mass.
Click to expand...
You would think that Traditional people who wanted to promote a point of view would avoid using a term they know annoys some people, because of the way other Traditional people misused that term. The attitude among Traditional types is “We are a tiny minority, and we are determined to keep it that way!”

It’s almost as if they like remaining a tiny minority more than they like the TLM.
 
LumineDiei said:
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...
Again, it is official name of the Liturgy. How is it offensive I don’t get but you’d do well to reconsider since it was named by Pope and people commissioned by him to promulgate it.

It literally means “New Order”. What is so bad about it?

If it was denigrating form of Mass it would be totally different. I attend OF more than EF and in general I have no problem with OF at all. It isn’t used to denigrating anything… some people are being offended by the name because some other minority used abbreviation to make it seem like Mass is invalid.
commenter said:
You would think that Traditional people who wanted to promote a point of view would avoid using a term they know annoys some people, because of the way other Traditional people misused that term.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I haven’t seem term used as insulting in years. Whenever someone not used to name OF uses it they get bashed despite fact context often shows they do consider OF Mass valid (as in this context where poster literally referred to Eucharist as being valid and form of Liturgy wasn’t even concern of his in that post). Benefit of doubt isn’t even close to being used. I am honestly tired of that because term is correct. I’ve seen it used by Clergy and as I mentioned several times it was used by Pope who authoritatively promulgated that very Liturgy. It’s all just playing word games about who said anything wrong except this time it isn’t even wrong. We all understand the term and what is meant by it.
 
That still does not speak to the whole of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
otjm said:
Let’s run a “what if” scenario. You are in Church, it is Communion time, your bench is clear as those next to you have gone up to Communion, and you look up. Christ is standing there next to you, holding up a Host and says to you “The Body of Christ”.

Would you tell him “No thanks - I don’t receive in the hand”?
Click to expand...
Jesus wouldn’t ask me to receive in the hand. 😉
 
I doubt very much that Jesus went round the table placing it in their mouths.
The Jews already had a custom of breaking bread and that was done by hand.
 
Last edited:
Montrose said:
I doubt very much that Jesus went round the table placing it in their mouths.
The Jews already had a custom of breaking bread and that was done by hand.
Click to expand...
Our Lord broke the bread, not Apostles… or at least not during Last Supper. So He used hands to break it.

And main argument I’ve seen used for this is that Apostles were already ordained by the time they received Christ. So they were Bishops who received Eucharist by taking it in their hands.

In the end, normative way of receiving is on the tongue as Church has decided. In Latin Rite, an exception is allowed for certain areas and under certain conditions to receive in the hand, but it should be taken care to not displace receiving on the tongue. OP can choose not to receive from this perfectly valid reason as communion in the hand requires prior catechesis and utmost care must be taken as to not discard reverence. If he hasn’t received catechesis or he feels that takes away his personal reverence, he can follow laws of the Church and not receive. Actually if one feels it takes away his personal reverence then that person should not receive in the hand.
 
Last edited:
Meaning, I take it, you would refuse to receive Communion? Or is that in addition to receiving?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top