Communion on the tongue while kneeling

  • Thread starter Thread starter dailymass
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

I don’t know if anyone mentioned the NO Mass in this thread.

The problem that I see—is once the Pope realized there was a problem with communion in the hand—he had the capability to stop it—but he didn’t. Why-- because the creature has become dominant. The importance was place on “those who receive reverently” —and Who pays the price:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

“However, 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.”

Ps. bringing Bishop Fellay into this—really does not do much for you.
Sorry WH, I just don’t see what your saying at least here on Kauai. Yes, I’ve read reports of some clergy (priest & bishops) making the Mass into their own private property, **But not here **that I’ve seen or heard of. As for communion in the hand, I, until a few months ago, believed it was wrong because of reading on the net about how the faithful was disrespecting the Host. But when I began to really watch and talk with my fellow parishners, I began to see & believe that it wasn’t so.

For the live of me, I don’t understand why you hard shell Traditionalist say JP II was wrong in allowing RITH. If it is in the link you posted, I’m only read about half of it. If there, will you please highlight it or point to it. Thanks!

PS: I wasn’t the one that brought Bishop Fellay into this, please see who I replied to.
 
Sorry WH, I just don’t see what your saying at least here on Kauai. Yes, I’ve read reports of some clergy (priest & bishops) making the Mass into their own private property, **But not here **that I’ve seen or heard of. As for communion in the hand, I, until a few months ago, believed it was wrong because of reading on the net about how the faithful was disrespecting the Host. But when I began to really watch and talk with my fellow parishners, I began to see & believe that it wasn’t so.

For the live of me, I don’t understand why you hard shell Traditionalist say JP II was wrong in allowing RITH. If it is in the link you posted, I’m only read about half of it. If there, will you please highlight it or point to it. Thanks!

PS: I wasn’t the one that brought Bishop Fellay into this, please see who I replied to.

Just because you haven’t seen it–does not mean it does not happen. We have our late Pope’s own word that it does. As I said prior— What grieves me–is that it wasn’t stopped when the Pope realized what was going on.

In the link provided—look for the following section:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, 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 the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
 
Martin Luther offered communion in the hand in the Lutheran church to show that it’s not really the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

It’s never irreverent to “stick out your tongue” and allow Christ, acting in the priest, to feed you with His own body and blood.
I believe Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence therefore what you are saying here may not be correct.
 
I believe Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence therefore what you are saying here may not be correct.
Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation. Transubstantiation requires a sacramental priesthood, which Luther categorically denied.
 

Just because you haven’t seen it–does not mean it does not happen. We have our late Pope’s own word that it does. As I said prior— What grieves me–is that it wasn’t stopped when the Pope realized what was going on.
I have never said it does not happen, only that I haven’t seen it here. Sure I’ve seen individuals that were not reverant, but I’ve seen that prior to the NO mass. No doubt things are worse, but what isn’t in this crazy world.

In the link provided—look for the following section:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, 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 the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
Thanks for posting this part of the link! From reading just this part, it looks as through he was rebuking or chewing some behinds in what I highlighted above.
I do believe this world is in for great chastisement. And has been coming for some time now.
Crazy? Maybe, but I’m not stupid!
 
I have never said it does not happen, only that I haven’t seen it here. Sure I’ve seen individuals that were not reverant, but I’ve seen that prior to the NO mass. No doubt things are worse, but what isn’t in this crazy world.

Thanks for posting this part of the link! From reading just this part, it looks as through he was rebuking or chewing some behinds in what I highlighted above.
I do believe this world is in for great chastisement. And has been coming for some time now.
Crazy? Maybe, but I’m not stupid!

Our Church is old enough to have learned from the past. To know what can happen —when She lets Her guard down. Now —it is about pleasing man.
 
Believe it or not, I know that the Pope is not infallible except in Faith & Morals. But for some of those on this board to say that he (JP II) was dead wrong in allowing the NO Mass and Communion in the hand as being a sacrilege against God, IMO is sinful. And, unless you want to declare yourselves saints, I see no relevance to your above statement.
As for Bsp. Fellay, we all should know his position in our Holy Catholic Church!
Since you quoted me in your above response, you are jumping to conclusions in your frenzied attempt to knock down what I am saying regarding Communion in the hand. I have not stated anywhere here that it is a sacrilege, although I personally do believe that it is a sacrilege for unconsecrated hands to touch the Body of Christ. I HAVE stated that yes, it is allowed by the Church but as has been shown it was a mistake that it ever was allowed. I have said nothing here, either, about the NOM.

I will say it again. How can any good, well-meaning Catholic such as we have here be comfortable with the thought of Our Lord, present in each particle of the Host, being trodden upon under foot? What is your response to that? Would you or someone please answer with your reasoning for accepting such a thing?
 
Actually…I’ll join you where it comes to the sentence to which you were referring. So, you better make room fast! 🙂

Tried to remove it, but I was too slow. I was not trying to promote moral relativism, however, but simply attempting to highlight the issue of discernment versus the act of passing personal judgement on others. It’s one thing to hold a personal religious view such as the one being described on this thread and it’s another to apply it in terms of passing severe judgement on those fellow Catholics with whom you disagree. It’s too easily done–it’s human nature–but I suggest its heading in the wrong spiritual direction.

Reminds me of a quote I like from an Anglican writer named C.S. Lewis. As he reminds us in The Weight of Glory, there are no “ordinary people”. Lewis continues on that “nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.” When one is faced with the sobering value of his fellow man, pride is replaced with humility. That is what I was trying to draw attention to.

Furthermore, I do believe that legalism is a problem for some “Cradle Catholics”–as well as other Christians. There is a Catholic exorcist I was reading last summer, for instance, that pointed out that the demon(s) he frequently encountered at Catholic exorcisms identified itself/themselves as “legalism”. I never much believed in demons identifying themselves as the names of particular sins. It all seemed a little too Frank Peretti to me, but I have read a number of accounts which appear to indicate that this kind of thing is not that rare–in the context of a Church approved exorcism. When I read that for the first time, it made a big impact with me, and it is an area of which I am constantly trying to be aware. I know it sounds corny, but it’s also true that the way we treat or think about others is the way we treat Christ–perhaps even more true when we are talking about those fellow Catholics who have just taken the Eucharist!

Remember what Saint Augustine wrote of the Eucharist in Confessions, “**I am the food of full-grown men. Grow and you shall feed on me. But you shall not change me into your own substance, as you do with the food of your body. Instead you shall be changed into me.” **

That being the case, it seems rather bad form to be watching those receiving the Eucharist for the purpose of passing your critcal juddgement upon them.
Enjoyed reading your post! I especially like your last argument. If we become more like Christ when we partake of the Eucharist and if we are taking it in accordance to our parish’s practices, then I can see how there is a sense where we are criticizing or judging Christ Himself when we harbor feelings like those described earlier regarding those who may be receiving in the hand. That is definitely food for thought! In fact, it’s downright sobering–if you really think about the implications.
 
Enjoyed reading your post! I especially like your last argument. If we become more like Christ when we partake of the Eucharist and if we are taking it in accordance to our parish’s practices, then I can see how there is a sense where we are criticizing or judging Christ Himself when we harbor feelings like those described earlier regarding those who may be receiving in the hand. That is definitely food for thought! In fact, it’s downright sobering–if you really think about the implications.
Thank you, North Coast. Glad those paragraphs were meaningful to you. I think its important that we put things in perspective here. How can we honor the Eucharist and think derisively of those who have received it (in accordance with current Church practices)? There seems a fundamental disconnect there. If we believe it is as real as Saint Augustine wrote, then we’re all being changed more into or like Christ when we partake of the Sacrament. As I put it in an article recently, it “unearths who we are, men and women created in the image of God”. The judgemental tone of some of the posts seems to betray an attitude other than true or deep reverence, since it fails to show kindness to those fellow Catholics who have received–with whom Christ is residing in both a spiritual and physical sense. Thanks again for your thoughts!
 
stmaria, you said,
“Communion in the hand is a desecration of the greatest gift that God has given us: the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.”

TAKE IT UP WITH MY BISHOP!!!

I am not irreverent when I receive the Lord.

You are insulting a lot of Catholics who are in obedience to their Bishops.
Sorry if you were offended. That quote is from an article by John Vennari debugmybrain.blogspot.com/2006/02/communion-in-hand.html

I do not feel that it is a desecration. I just feel that it is not the proper way to receive the Eucharist.
 
**Absolutely NOT! **But to insinuate he sinned or committed a sacrilege by allowing the NO Mass and receiving in the hand is just plain wrong!
😦
But Pope john Paul did change canon law to allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion. It was certain that this would turn into an abuse such as the day the President Bill Clinton received holy Communion from a priest in South Africa.
This was in 1998, while he was having his affair with Monica. Yes I will judge him. I am sure he was in a state of mortal sin when he received the Eucharist.

Bill Clinton receiving communion
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm
 
Sorry if you were offended. That quote is from an article by John Vennari debugmybrain.blogspot.com/2006/02/communion-in-hand.html

I do not feel that it is a desecration. I just feel that it is not the proper way to receive the Eucharist.
Would you say it has resulted in more frequent desecration of the Eucharist (they used to find hosts stuck under the pews in my old NO parish) and a general weakening of the dogma of the real presence?

Did you also know that heretics have instituted CIH to wreck the belief in the real presence?
 

Just because you haven’t seen it–does not mean it does not happen. We have our late Pope’s own word that it does. As I said prior— What grieves me–is that it wasn’t stopped when the Pope realized what was going on.

In the link provided—look for the following section:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See.which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases 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 the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
April 15, 2005

Fort Erie: Catholics throughout North America are stunned and outraged at the news that a** consecrated Host from a 1998 Papal Mass in Rome was sold on EBAY.**
The Host was posted for sale on Saturday, April 9, with a minimum bid of $100.00. The seller was a non-Catholic who reportedly lives in Sloan, Iowa.

Father Nicholas Gruner, the Director of the Fatima Center, said the modern abuse of Communion in the hand in Catholic churches made the incident possible. “Communion in the hand has always been forbidden in the Catholic Church precisely to prevent sacrilege,” Father Gruner said.

The seller of the Host wrote on EBAY, “First of all, I AM NOT CATHOLIC AND DO NOT BELIEVE I’M GOING TO HELL FOR SELLING THIS COLLECTIBLE.”

The seller then stated he obtained the Host by twice going for Communion during a Papal Mass at the Vatican. “I ate my own wafer,” he said, “then I went back and got another one to save and he gave me another one, but I did get a very dirty look.”
 
But Pope john Paul did change canon law to allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion. It was certain that this would turn into an abuse such as the day the President Bill Clinton received holy Communion from a priest in South Africa.
This was in 1998, while he was having his affair with Monica. Yes I will judge him. I am sure he was in a state of mortal sin when he received the Eucharist.

Bill Clinton receiving communion
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm
How could a non-Catholic receive Holy Communion? This is contrary to the 1917 CIC…how could JPII change this?
 
Would you say it has resulted in more frequent desecration of the Eucharist **(they used to find hosts stuck under the pews in my old NO parish) **and a general weakening of the dogma of the real presence?
Please, who is “they”? I keep reading these claims of desecration of the Eucharist, but with little or no back of documents to support them.

Did you also know that heretics have instituted CIH to wreck the belief in the real presence?
Please, again, is this hearsay or what?
I don’t mean to offend or doubt your sincerity, I just have not seen any of this in my personal life & these claims or statements are beginning to way heavy on my heart & soul.
Thank you & God bless
 
I just have not seen any of this in my personal life & these claims or statements are beginning to way heavy on my heart & soul.
I hope they are weighing heavy on your heart, as they should. You can be sure that this type of sacrilege and desecration of the Holy Eucharist does happen. Who knows how often, but does it matter? Isn’t even one time enough?
 
But Pope john Paul did change canon law to allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion. It was certain that this would turn into an abuse such as the day the President Bill Clinton received holy Communion from a priest in South Africa.
This was in 1998, while he was having his affair with Monica. Yes I will judge him. I am sure he was in a state of mortal sin when he received the Eucharist.

Bill Clinton receiving communion
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm
JP II **DID NOT change canon law to allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion!
**
And you can judge Bill Clinton all you want. I was referring to judging JP II.
 
I hope they are weighing heavy on your heart, as they should. You can be sure that this type of sacrilege and desecration of the Holy Eucharist does happen. Who knows how often, but does it matter? Isn’t even one time enough?
I asked for documentation & not your opinion!😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top