Communion on the Tongue- a very vaild reason!

[T_More]

All is vanity. A person can wish all they want to, but when the Church allows something then the discussion is over for the laity, no?

So when JPII stated that only consecrated hands should handle the sacred host, he was out of line?

*Pope John Paul II, Interview, 1980“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." (responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.)”

Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb 24, 1980“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained…”

“But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!”

“…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 Communion in the hand has been authorized.”*

 

[T_More]

Common sense is not all that common.

Common sense tells me that anyone wanting to steal the Eucharist to desecrate it would, after doing research and seeing threads on forums like these, they would receive on the tongue as they know that people will not watch them as closely as they appear to follow the doing of those who receive in the hand. They would then spit it out when no one is looking and by these sorts of threads people are encouraged not to place those who receive on the tongue under any scrutiny.

Two problems with this, 1) you are giving those sort of people some great advice on how to do it and 2) no one should be focusing their attention on other and how they receive at the time of reception of the Eucharist. That is the job of the priest, EMHCs, and ushers.

Bishop Bernard D. Stewart, Sandhurst, Australia 1950-1979“Children are known to have fiddled with the Sacred Host placed into their hands at Holy Communion; adults have been seen to pass the Blessed Sacrament from one to the other in a queue. Rightly does the Sacred Congregation ask whether such people who act like this really believe in the Real Presence of Christ. One must pass over in appalled silence the unspeakable abominations of demonism when the Sacred Host is sacrilegiously carried off to the satanic rituals of black masses. Sacrileges have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. But today the Holy See testifies that they are numerous and widespread; it also says that Communion in the traditional manner [on the tongue] is a better safeguard against adulteration of doctrine and profanation.”

 

[Stylites]

So when JPII stated that only consecrated hands should handle the sacred host, he was out of line?

No, the Pope was not out of line. Thinking one is the arbiter and interpreter of what the Pope writes would be out of line, however. Are you saying that the Bishops who allow CITH are out of line? Saying so would certainly be out of line, no?

Posting a thread advocating against a liturgical practice which the Church approves of might be okay in the Liturgical forum, but it has nothing to do with traditional Catholicism, by the way.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So when JPII stated that only consecrated hands should handle the sacred host, he was out of line?

*Pope John Paul II, Interview, 1980“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." (responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.)”

Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb 24, 1980“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained…”

“But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!”

“…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 Communion in the hand has been authorized.”*

No where in your quotes does it say that “only consecrated hands should handle the sacred host”, it does speak of a priest being consecrated.

Do you deny that Pope John Paul II allowed the practice of CITH and EMHC? If not then which pope did so? Pope Benedict does not object, if he did he would remove these options.

The deacon is an ordinary minister of communion. His hands are not consecrated. So are you of the mind a deacon should not give out communion?

A on going misconception of the COTT only crowd is the consecration of the priest’s hands. His hands are not consecrated at ordination for the handling of the Eucharist, they are done so for the confection of the Eucharist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Bishop Bernard D. Stewart, Sandhurst, Australia 1950-1979“Children are known to have fiddled with the Sacred Host placed into their hands at Holy Communion; adults have been seen to pass the Blessed Sacrament from one to the other in a queue. Rightly does the Sacred Congregation ask whether such people who act like this really believe in the Real Presence of Christ. One must pass over in appalled silence the unspeakable abominations of demonism when the Sacred Host is sacrilegiously carried off to the satanic rituals of black masses. Sacrileges have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. But today the Holy See testifies that they are numerous and widespread; it also says that Communion in the traditional manner [on the tongue] is a better safeguard against adulteration of doctrine and profanation.”

One man’s opinion. That is in no way facts or figures.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

My wife recently informed me that in her last women’s group meeting that the topic of communion on the tongue or in the hand came up. We belong to a very traditional parish where most receive on the tongue. The other ladies mentioned that most of their members of their parish receive in the hand and expressed that they wish they didn’t because…they have had Satanic groups come to their Masses incognito so they could carry away the hosts for black masses!! Has anyone heard of this in their neck of the woods?

This posts, hence this thread, is nothing more than fearmongering.

That is the attempt at generating fear to apply pressure to form one’s opinion to the opinion of the OP.

That is that by allowing CITH we allow more satanists to steal the Eucharist to desecrate it so the only answer is to not allow CITH anymore.

Total rubbish and a very weak argument style.

 

[T_More]

Common sense is not all that common.

For thanks for compliment…I think…

Common sense tells me that anyone wanting to steal the Eucharist to desecrate it would, after doing research and seeing threads on forums like these, they would receive on the tongue as they know that people will not watch them as closely as they appear to follow the doing of those who receive in the hand. They would then spit it out when no one is looking and by these sorts of threads people are encouraged not to place those who receive on the tongue under any scrutiny.

Two problems with this, 1) you are giving those sort of people some great advice on how to do it

**I did? Where? **

 

[RileyG]

Yes, Satanic rituals do mock the Catholic Mass, (Lord, have mercy upon them), because they know that the Catholic Church is true and hate it.

I always receive communion on my tongue, out of reverence and a deep respect for Christ.

God Bless

 

[triumphguy]

Good for you.

Out of deep reverence and love of the Eucharist I humbly receive the Eucharist in my hands.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I always receive communion on my tongue, out of reverence and a deep respect for Christ.

Just a question because of the qualification you added to how you receive.

Do you believe that those who chose to receive in the hand do so out of a lack of respect and reverence for Christ?

 

[T_More]

This posts, hence this thread, is nothing more than fearmongering.

That is the attempt at generating fear to apply pressure to form one’s opinion to the opinion of the OP.

That is that by allowing CITH we allow more satanists to steal the Eucharist to desecrate it so the only answer is to not allow CITH anymore.

Total rubbish and a very weak argument style.

This is a strawman my friend. Look at the title of thread. “A very valid reason”. Does it lessen the chance of what was described? Any reasonable person would answer yes.

Did I state anywhere on this thread that this was the only reason against CITH? You seem to be a bit cantankerous about this. I’m sorry if I upset you.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Just a question because of the qualification you added to how you receive.

Do you believe that those who chose to receive in the hand do so out of a lack of respect and reverence for Christ?

If the Church decreed in ten years or so to outlaw CITH, would you follow? Note, this is a highly likely possibility given the evidence that communion particles fall on people’s hands and on the ground, proven by many but here’s a reference youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

 

[mab23]

My wife recently informed me that in her last women’s group meeting that the topic of communion on the tongue or in the hand came up. We belong to a very traditional parish where most receive on the tongue. The other ladies mentioned that most of their members of their parish receive in the hand and expressed that they wish they didn’t because…they have had Satanic groups come to their Masses incognito so they could carry away the hosts for black masses!! Has anyone heard of this in their neck of the woods?

wow , i never even knew this happened

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is a strawman my friend. Look at the title of thread. “A very valid reason”. Does it lessen the chance of what was described? Any reasonable person would answer yes.

Did I state anywhere on this thread that this was the only reason against CITH? You seem to be a bit cantankerous about this. I’m sorry if I upset you.

Actually it is not a strawman. That you title the thread “A very valid reason” dose not make it one nor change the fact that your “valid reason” is one that is based on fear to sway to your opinion.

Fear mongering (or scaremongering or scare tactics) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end.

If the Church decreed in ten years or so to outlaw CITH, would you follow?

First, I have never stated how I receive. It really is no ones business how I receive as long as I receive in a way allowed by the Church.

Second, You really have no right to question my loyalty to the Church in such a way.

Note, this is a highly likely possibility given the evidence that communion particles fall on people’s hands and on the ground, proven by many but here’s a reference youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

As for the particle issue, that has been addressed many times on this forum. I believe as the Church Teaches. Christ is present under the species of bread. When the bread no longer has the appearance of bread the real presence is gone. I do not believe that dust particles appear as bread. But that is a totally different discussion and you and those who continue to push this along with this video have yet to explain where all this dust goes even with COTT.

 

[Darran]

There’s a priest here in Belfast who shouts at anyone to turn around and face towards him if they don’t have the Eucharist in their mouths by the time they turn to go back to their seat, it’s certainly a problem. By cannon law it is an obligation not to serve communion in the hand if that sort of nonsense might possibly happen, or if it will result in a loss of reverence (which I would imagine umbrella’s every reception in the hand save a group of Bishops).

It’s definitely more obvious if a person takes the Host out of their mouths than it is when they just walk with it in their hand.

 

[Stylites]

If the Church decreed in ten years or so to outlaw CITH, would you follow? Note, this is a highly likely possibility given the evidence that communion particles fall on people’s hands and on the ground, proven by many but here’s a reference youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

Of course, the accident of bread ceases when you look at microscopic particles. It is no longer bread but dust. Again, if the Church allows CITH then there’s no more discussion for the reasonable and faithful laity to engage in about it.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

First, I have never stated how I receive. It really is no ones business how I receive as long as I receive in a way allowed by the Church.

Second, You really have no right to question my loyalty to the Church in such a way.

Answer the question.

As for the particle issue, that has been addressed many times on this forum. I believe as the Church Teaches. Christ is present under the species of bread. When the bread no longer has the appearance of bread the real presence is gone. I do not believe that dust particles appear as bread. But that is a totally different discussion and you and those who continue to push this along with this video have yet to explain where all this dust goes even with COTT.

Heresy

“If any one denieth that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent)

Also,

“Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, Sacramentarium): ‘Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself entire under each.’”

Council decree and Doctor of the Church say different, a little assent is in order.

 

[Stylites]

wow , i never even knew this happened

Welcome to the Scandal Forum.

 

[agnes_therese]

Answer the question.
Heresy

“If any one denieth that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent)

Not heresy. CCC, para. 1377: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsists.

 

[triumphguy]

Answer the question.

Heresy

“If any one denieth that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent)

When separated into pieces to be distributed as communion, or the “fragments” that are to be reserved, not dust sized particles!

Imagine how many particles stick to the priest’s hand when he distributes to peoples’ mouths and their lips and saliva make his fingers moist.