Communion on the Tongue- a very vaild reason!

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Answer the question.

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.

I stand by my response. You have no right or authority to question my loyalty to the Church.

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.

Again, the Church Teaches that when the particles loose the appearance of the species it no longer contains the real presence. This is not heresy.

If this were not so then you must dispose of the waste from your body in an Church approved manner as the real presence would be present in it.

 

[Moore11]

Because said parishes have caught them doing it.

We have had satanists do this exact thing in our parish. Not only for use in their own rituals but also for desecration at our Church. We have found the blessed sacrament in urinals and toilets with notes on them. Until we became more vigilant it was a common occurrence.

Some people dont believe that it happens. it does. It must be nice to live in a place that this is unbelievable.
But for someone so determined to do this I dont think in the hand or on the tongue would make a bit of difference.

 

[curlycool89]

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

I remember this video coming up before, and I think someone on this forum said they did a similar experiment (with an unconsecrated host) and couldn’t duplicate the results.

Also, the guy in the video seems to be trying to deliberately mislead people. He appears to be using one of the larger hosts that a priest will hold up during the consecration and is later broken into pieces. Nobody actually ever receives such a large host during communion. Most people receive a smaller host that is not so crumbly.

The other point is “yes, so?” In some cases, sometimes there is a small particle. You simply pick it up and consume it. It’s not rocket science.

“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)

Notice the very specific wording: “part of each species”. What is the species? Bread. Therefore, the whole Christ is contained under each piece of bread. When you can no longer identify it as bread, then it is not longer the species of bread, and no longer the real presence.

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.

Exactly. Dust does not contain the Real Presence.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We have had satanists do this exact thing in our parish. Not only for use in their own rituals but also for desecration at our Church. We have found the blessed sacrament in urinals and toilets with notes on them. Until we became more vigilant it was a common occurrence.

Some people dont believe that it happens. it does. It must be nice to live in a place that this is unbelievable.
But for someone so determined to do this I dont think in the hand or on the tongue would make a bit of difference.

I am sure it has happened but anecdotal evidence carries no weight. Also let me ask you this. How was the Eucharist that you found with the note received? Can you state with 100% assurance that it was received in the hand?

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

With out actual facts and figures there is no way to know how widespread this is, if it is at all.

Even so, this still amounts to fearmongering. The use of fear, that a satanist will get a hold of the Eucharist, to make people accept the opinion of the OP that COTT is the only way to go.

 

[Moore11]

I am sure it has happened but anecdotal evidence carries no weight. Also let me ask you this. How was the Eucharist that you found with the note received? Can you state with 100% assurance that it was received in the hand?

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

With out actual facts and figures there is no way to know how widespread this is, if it is at all.

Even so, this still amounts to fearmongering. The use of fear, that a satanist will get a hold of the Eucharist, to make people accept the opinion of the OP that COTT is the only way to go.

1. I made it clear that CITH was not a contributing factor. I think you are a little jumpy about an emotional subject.
2. How many anecdotes do you need to see certain things in this world. For me. It only takes this one. There are bad things out there. You are blessed that some of those things are hidden. Personally my preference is the tongue but the Church has made it clear that the hand is valid. I accept both. I think perhaps some use scaremongering to make a point but also sometimes when someone tells you to watch out for snakes in the tall grass, it means there are snakes in the tall grass, look out. And nothing more.
3. At my Parish. Maybe 5 percent receive on the tongue. So no, I can not state 100 percent it wasnt. But 95 percent is still pretty good. However, it doesnt matter HOW it was received anyway, I think both you and I agree on that!

 

[RileyG]

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?

No, I do not. It’s what I personally choose to do, out of respect.

 

[Moore11]

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?

:banghead: This is the type of set up question that bothers so much on these forums. The answer is NO! And you know that. But what some seem to love to do is to bait people into saying things that they do not mean. And it is usually aimed at traditionalists.
Logically NO one can say why an entire group of people choose to do something. It is silly to think that ALL who receive on the hand dont believe in the real presence and all who receive on the tounge are sooooo in touch with God. But I will tell you this. I think many who receive do not believe or understand. And I think most people in general receive in the hand, so statistically…

 

[triumphguy]

No, I do not. It’s what I personally choose to do, out of respect.

That’s right: you have a choice.

IMHO it utterly demeans the Eucharist to use tricks, tactics, urban legends or anecdotes etc to scare people into, or out of, one or other form of the mass. Therefore such tactics are probably sacrilegious.

I say we should make the choice and respect the choice of others to follow the form of the mass they do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, I do not. It’s what I personally choose to do, out of respect.

I believe that it is a given that all of us who are Catholic and receive the Eucharist do so out of reverence and out of respect regardless of which Church approved method we chose.

When one states their preference and then adds that it is chosen out of reverence and out of respect then it automatically implies that any other choice is done so for opposite reasons.

Why can’t a person just state how they receive without the qualification added?

This is why I do not say how I receive. It is irrelevant what my preference is. I defend both choices equally it just seems that there are more COTT preferers who wish to have the other option taken away.

 

[RileyG]

I believe that it is a given that all of us who are Catholic and receive the Eucharist do so out of reverence and out of respect regardless of which Church approved method we chose.

When one states their preference and then adds that it is chosen out of reverence and out of respect then it automatically implies that any other choice is done so for opposite reasons.

Why can’t a person just state how they receive without the qualification added?

This is why I do not say how I receive. It is irrelevant what my preference is. I defend both choices equally it just seems that there are more COTT preferers who wish to have the other option taken away.

Thank you for your response. You are correct, it’s my choice. Regardless of how someone chooses to receive communion, they mean it out of respect. Very true.

I’m sorry if I confused you/.

God Bless +

 

[TimothyH]

You’re not obligated to stay on the thread. But thanks for the snarky remark. Peace be with you.

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

I think you tip your hand when you post like this.

Did you really intend to have a discussion about some ladies who insist that communion on the tounge was needed to prevent black masses?

Or was that just a ploy to start a general debate and thereby state your own thoughts in about discontinuation of communion in the hand?

-Tim-