I agree with this. Through the ages words have been changed or dropped when they take on the tenor of a pejorative. Another example is the word ‘schismatic’ and the need to drop it. Another word that the Church doesn’t really use in documents is ‘demon’. It’s technical meaning is ‘foreign deity’ and was used that way in early literature, but it took on an added satanic meaning by people wanting to cast more evil on other religions than intended.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
angell1
Guest
not quite, ti’s also a very old tradition practiced by many of the early christians, but i get you mean, the devisiveness over the whole issue is really getting tiring for me as well, both are allowed, people can receive how they wish
J
JSRG
Guest
You can take communion on the tongue at a non-Latin mass, so emphatically yes.I would like to ask about Communion on the hand if ye do not mind. Is it acceptable to abstain from Communion on the hand and still regularly attend the NO Mass?
What’s stopping you from getting it from the Priest, then?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.
Fulfilling the Sunday obligation is by attending mass. Actual consumption of the Eucharist only has to be done once per year sometime during the paschal season.If I receive Communion when I attend the TLM (low mass) on Saturday, is it acceptable to abstain from Communion at Sunday NO Mass? Is it just thick to think I can fulfill my Sunday obligation as well as my need to receive our Lord in the host by doing things this way? Thank you.
But again, even if one was required to take the Eucharist, I don’t know of anything that would prevents you from taking it on the tongue from a priest, unless your bishop has banned communion on the tongue in general in your diocese due to Coronavirus.
Last edited:
B
babochka
Guest
In the Byzantine Rite ordination, the priest’s hands are not consecrated. Unless your priest happens to be a bi-ritual Latin priest, unconsecrated hands have touched the Body of ChristThe Divine Liturgy is Heaven on Earth and everyone receives Communion the same way (via spoon) so there’s no issue of touching the Host with unconsecrated hands
S
SlavaIsusuChristu
Guest
S
SlavaIsusuChristu
Guest
That is the tradition of the Eastern Church. Clergy are set aside for the service of the Divine Liturgy. The consecrating of hands is an important symbol in the Roman Church, it’s not as though it gives a priests hands super powers. His hands remain the same as that of any other. But if you want to mention the Byzantine tradition, it’s important to note that laity never ever touch the host or the chalice under any circumstances. They receive communion under both species from the chalice via a spoon. So this isn’t even a concern in the Byzantine world.
B
babochka
Guest
No, it isn’t a concern in the Byzantine world.That is the tradition of the Eastern Church. Clergy are set aside for the service of the Divine Liturgy. The consecrating of hands is an important symbol in the Roman Church, it’s not as though it gives a priests hands super powers. His hands remain the same as that of any other. But if you want to mention the Byzantine tradition, it’s important to note that laity never ever touch the host or the chalice under any circumstances. They receive communion under both species from the chalice via a spoon. So this isn’t even a concern in the Byzantine world.
You brought up “consecrated hands”, but it is far from the best argument against Communion in the hand. In the Latin Rite, a deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion and he does not have consecrated hands.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
No one uses those terms in a derogatory tone, though. Novus Ordo is often used by those who denigrate the Ordinary Form.It’s same as with Tridentine Mass, Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or Mass of Paul VI.
S
SlavaIsusuChristu
Guest
Well, traditionally speaking, only the priest gives communion and communicants receive kneeling and on the tongue. This is how Rome has always wanted it done. Rome certainly allows communion in the hand but it’s not the “normal” or “preferred” way by Rome’s standards. So even here, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Ultimately it ends up being a moot point since Churches can change their discipline at their discretion.
Ultimately it ends up being a moot point since Churches can change their discipline at their discretion.
B
babochka
Guest
Whether considered ordinary ministers (as now) or extraordinary ministers (as under the 1917 Code), one of the recognized roles of deacons has always been to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion. Traditionally speaking. While it might not have been usual to see a deacon distributing Communion at the altar rail, it would have been illicit, and the deacon has long had the responsibility to bring Holy Communion to the sick. Even the SSPX missal acknowledges this, saying “The consecration of the Deacon, giving the right and power to sing the Gospel, to baptize, and to dispense holy Communion, and to preach.”Well, traditionally speaking, only the priest gives communion and communicants receive kneeling and on the tongue.
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
The larger concern is the Pharisaical attitude that Christ reprimanded time and time again. “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” Matthew 15:11I no longer feel it acceptable to receive Communion on the hand, and receiving it on the tongue by unconsecrated hands seems just as bad.
P
paperwight
Guest
Well now, let’s unpick this.Especially how often it was to see someone drop the host, laugh from being embarassed, and just pick our Lord up and pop Him in their mouth like they dropped a potato chip and go back to their pew like nothing happened, with zero reaction from the clergy present who I saw witness the event.
You say ‘how often it was to see someone drop the Host’. How often, exactly? Every Mass? Every month? I think in over 40 years I have only seen this once.
You say ‘laugh from being embarrassed’. Some people do laugh when they are embarrassed. They are human, they don’t do it out of irreverence, it’s just a nervous tic…
You say ‘pick our Lord up’. What else could they do? The priest can’t bend down in case the ciborium gets tipped up and something even worse happens, but the Host can’t be just left on the floor…
You say 'pop Him in their mouth '.Again, what else can they do? The phrase ‘pop Him in their mouth’ could be replaced with ‘hastily do what should have happened the first time so as to retrieve the situation’.
You say ‘go back to their pew like nothing happened’, Well for one thing, you don’t know what distress and embarrassment they could be feeling. And anyway, again, what else could they do?
J
JSRG
Guest
Someone responded to that argument here.
Last edited:
B
babochka
Guest
I’ve never seen a lay person drop the host, but have seen a priest drop Holy Communion (body and blood mixed, as in the Byzantine Church.) He stopped, picked up what he could, and consumed it. He stepped aside while somebody else covered the area with a cloth (so that it could be properly cared for later), then continued with the distribution of Holy Communion (like nothing happened). What else could he do?Well now, let’s unpick this.
You say ‘how often it was to see someone drop the Host’. How often, exactly? Every Mass? Every month? I think in over 40 years I have only seen this once.
You say ‘laugh from being embarrassed’. Some people do laugh when they are embarrassed. They are human, they don’t do it out of irreverence, it’s just a nervous tic…
You say ‘pick our Lord up’. What else could they do? The priest can’t bend down in case the ciborium gets tipped up and something even worse happens, but the Host can’t be just left on the floor…
You say 'pop Him in their mouth '.Again, what else can they do? The phrase ‘pop Him in their mouth’ could be replaced with ‘hastily do what should have happened the first time so as to retrieve the situation’.
You say ‘go back to their pew like nothing happened’, Well for one thing, you don’t know what distress and embarrassment they could be feeling. And anyway, again, what else could they do?
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. I would imagine it must happen quite a lot at that parish if you have personally seen it 5 or 6 times. It seems like that parish is a challenging environment in general.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
Do be careful, though. As you say, we have our own problems. Thankfully, I’ve never experienced the problems that you have experienced in my opportunities to attend Mass. I live in a generally more conservative diocese and have avoided those couple of parishes that are known for being a bit out there. I have found the vast majority of Masses that I have attended to be prayerful and reverent, though not to my preference liturgically.I left Rome for good reasons and will never go back. My home is in the Ruthenian Church now, where these problems don’t exist. That’s not to say they don’t have their own problems and struggles, but it is a night and day difference from our experience in Rome.
For the record, I’m not a fan of Communion in the hand, but the Church does allow it. It is not an abuse. I don’t know why the need to mess with tradition so much. Why change something so simple and beautiful as receiving Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling. I just haven’t seen the horror that you describe. Maybe if I had, I would have a stronger option on the matter.
Last edited:
B
babochka
Guest
He is dearly missed by many of us. Here I quote just one time in which he addressed the topic.Just as a point of information, a priest on these fora was quite comfortable using the terms Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo. He was from Europe, which may have played a part, but there it is. In a comparative sense, the one ordinary is new and the other is old, novus and vetus. I know it’s pesky old Latin which seems to trigger some people, but it’s still perfectly acceptable terminology.
On this forum, I avoid the term. Not because it is wrong to use it, but because it upsets people. “Ordinary Form” is no more the “official” name of the contemporary Mass than “Novus Ordo”.Pope Benedict chose to coin the phrase that is rendered in English as Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form. That assuredly does not mean that the vocabulary is restricted to those terms.
As a professor of liturgy, I have used the terms novus ordo and vetus ordo/I --, which applies to the Mass, the other sacraments, the breviary, as well as the institution of sacramentals and conferral of blessings – for many many years and I have no intention to change at this point of life.
L
LisaB
Guest
Being in LA, do you have other parishes you could attend? I realize there are probably similar issues in many of them, but there are also many choices in such a large diocese. Have you tried any others. St Vitus?What else could they do? Kneel and receive communion on the tongue. Or show more reverence for the host by not casually sticking out a single handle haphazardly? I have witnessed people stick a hand out and then turn their head to talk to the person behind them. And no, of course this doesn’t happen every Sunday or every month. 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 (and even then we haven’t been going every Sunday with covid). But this is the same parish that regularly invites a priest from the neighboring air force base who sees no problem with skipping homilies, changing the words of consecration, chewing gum during communion and mixing our Lord’s body with his chewing gum, telling you in confession that all your mortal sins are, and I quote, “No big deal. Don’t worry about it”. More than one person has written to Archbishop Gomez about this priest more than once and yet nothing is ever done about it.
That would be good if you could leave it alone. The only purpose I can see with continually bashing the Roman Catholic Church is nastiness. You have resolved you personal dilemma and there are others like myself here who like the Ordinary Form and have seen it grow from the early tumultuous years to today. If our Popes happily say the Ordinary Form, I am happy and not inclined to keep going back bashing it. I really believe that rises to blasphemy treating the Thanksgiving for Christ like a football.But I really need to leave it at that. I left Rome for good reasons and will never go back. My home is in the Ruthenian Church now, where these problems don’t exist. That’s not to say they don’t have their own problems and struggles, but it is a night and day difference from our experience in Rome.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Are different parts of the body ‘consecrated’?unconsecrated hands
H
Horton
Guest
This is so offensive it is difficult to responded with charity. You are talking about one parish that seems to need some work and you are painting all Roman Churches with the same brush. Have you been to my parish? Have you attended Mass with either of my priests? Have you been to every parish Roman Catholic parish in the world, that you can make such a blanket statement such as this?But this is the same parish that regularly invites a priest from the neighboring air force base who sees no problem with skipping homilies, changing the words of consecration, chewing gum during communion and mixing our Lord’s body with his chewing gum, telling you in confession that all your mortal sins are, and I quote, “No big deal. Don’t worry about it”. More than one person has written to Archbishop Gomez about this priest more than once and yet nothing is ever done about it. There is just so much apathy in the Roman Church. The laity aren’t taught to care about the Mass and our Lord as much as they ought to. The priests aren’t formed to care as much as they ought to. Everything takes on a minimalist mindset. “Who cares if all these abuses are present during the Liturgy, these things are external and don’t affect the Mass itself, just focus on Christ in the Eucharist and don’t let anyone or anything else bother you”, as if that is the answer to this never ending problem.
Making this kind of statement about all our good and holy men of the Catholic Church, including the Pope, is so uncharitable I want to send you off to confession. You speak of those who have no reverence for the liturgy, who disrespect the Eucharist and then turn around and insult all Roman Catholics everywhere.The priests aren’t formed to care as much as they ought to. Everything takes on a minimalist mindset. “Who cares if all these abuses are present during the Liturgy, these things are external and don’t affect the Mass itself, just focus on Christ in the Eucharist and don’t let anyone or anything else bother you”, as if that is the answer to this never ending problem.
J
JSRG
Guest
If even the Bishop does not listen, you could directly try to appeal to the Congregation on the Doctrine of Faith; this gives some information on how to do it. Probably wouldn’t accomplish much if all you have is isolated stories rather than more direct proof, but certainly couldn’t hurt. Though I wonder if the writings to the Bishop followed the guidelines suggested there?But this is the same parish that regularly invites a priest from the neighboring air force base who sees no problem with skipping homilies, changing the words of consecration, chewing gum during communion and mixing our Lord’s body with his chewing gum, telling you in confession that all your mortal sins are, and I quote, “No big deal. Don’t worry about it”. More than one person has written to Archbishop Gomez about this priest more than once and yet nothing is ever done about it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.