O
otm
Guest
the problem with your argument is that in the early Church, everyone received in the hand. That was the norm, and it had nothing to do with the 12 apostles being bishops.
- Status
O
otm
Guest
If you are saying that many people in your church who are receiving are not Catholic, then I would agree with you thatthey should not be receiving. However, that has nothing to do wtih receiving in the hand as opposed to on the tongue.
However, if your remark has to do with people who have been baptized in another Christian church and have made a profession of faith in the Catholic Church, then you need to learn a little more about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church specifically recognizes the validity of baptism in another church if they follow the Trinitarian formula and use water. And I am curious how you wolud know where anyone was bapized.
Perhaps you should read what was actually said and done concerning that issue. The normative Mass is the Mass of Paul 6th, and John Paul 2 in no way at all even suggested that it should no longer be the norm. The specific permission was granted to the bishops who were given the authority to deterrmine whehter or not they would then grant the indult for the Tridentine Mass. They were given that right and permission; it was not mandated that they allow the indult, and so no, they did not tell John Paul 2 “where to go”, but rather they exercised the authority he specifically gave them. One may not like their choice. He said that he wished it to be liberally applied. He had the power and authority to demand that it be applied, but he also very thoroughly understood the issue of collegiality as set forth in the documents of Vatican 2, a council he played a signifcant role in.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Most Sacred Body is immune to disease. What’s your point?
B
buffalo
Guest
\
Water is the universal solvent.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
buffalo said:
With no effect on germs. It’s an entirely ceremonial cleansing.
E
elvisman
Guest
Actually - communion in the had is an ancient practice. For the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence this was the case.
Unfortunately, so many people have been so polluted against Vatican II that they refuse to accept this fact - even though it is historical.
"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome
M
Myangel
Guest
You say “Ny to mention the hygiene issues” and that water has no effect on GERMS, I said nothing about disease! Do you know how many germs you carry on your hands???
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No, I actually didn’t say that. Perhaps you’re thinking of another poster. I think that poster was refering to the priest’s hand being near one’s mouth and lips, etc. And yes, I teach, we do the whole “wash you hands!” thing, about dirty door knobs and money, etc.
S
super64
Guest
Hello,
Some really good discussion here. When some of you say that you see people receive in the hand with reverence, this wasn’t the point of the homily. People don’t think about the particles on their hands or going into their pockets. Why?
Yes, I agree it could be and most likely is the teaching they’ve been given. CCD became CFC? Why? I don’t know.
In the early church people received in the hand, until abuses arose. The Church changed it to on the tongue. We also kneeled when receiving; a plate was placed under a persons chin to catch the particles…that’s because it’s that important.
These things showed the utmost respect and reverence. As other Christian denominations that do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist spread over the earth and their effect on the local perishes result in a general relaxation of tradition, plus a way to speed up Communion. 
This has slowly evolved in the church at the local levels. We stopped kneeling (some churches took out the kneelers all together), we no longer have the plate and we receive in the hand. The Church authorized it, but is not recommended.
I have no doubts that many people in the Church, even the majority, believe that they are receiving with great respect and reverence. However, this is because they don’t know that there is a more respectful way to receive. The standards have been lowered to accommodate…lesser-trained people and/or a society that believes anything old most be outdated and therefore changed.
If receiving in the hand is equal to that in the mouth, then why don’t the Pope and the majority of Bishops do it?
I guess it’s because they see something most of us don’t. Christ in his Glory?
The majority of ‘Catholics’ believe artificial birth control is ok. Do we convince ourselves that it is truly the same as NFP? Nope!
If you receive in the hand that’s fine, but remember it isn’t as reverent as in the mouth. Like general absolution isn’t the same as private confession. I am as guilty as anyone because I lack the courage to make a more reverent act in church. However, if I am in the priests line I do receive on the tongue.
Here’s another thought. Eucharistic Adoration: If any of you have gone before the Lord and sat with Him, you know how awesome it is. We never turn our backs to Him while in His presence and we kneel with both knees. (or at least that’s how I was taught) If you’re going to show respect, be consistent.
Keep praying on it. Put more trust and faith in the Lord, don’t worry about germs!
Peace to you,
Scott
P.S. Yes, there some circumstances where one should receive in the hand, but those are rare. One at all possible in the mouth.
Some really good discussion here. When some of you say that you see people receive in the hand with reverence, this wasn’t the point of the homily. People don’t think about the particles on their hands or going into their pockets. Why?
Yes, I agree it could be and most likely is the teaching they’ve been given. CCD became CFC? Why? I don’t know.
In the early church people received in the hand, until abuses arose. The Church changed it to on the tongue. We also kneeled when receiving; a plate was placed under a persons chin to catch the particles…that’s because it’s that important.
These things showed the utmost respect and reverence. As other Christian denominations that do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist spread over the earth and their effect on the local perishes result in a general relaxation of tradition, plus a way to speed up Communion. This has slowly evolved in the church at the local levels. We stopped kneeling (some churches took out the kneelers all together), we no longer have the plate and we receive in the hand. The Church authorized it, but is not recommended.I have no doubts that many people in the Church, even the majority, believe that they are receiving with great respect and reverence. However, this is because they don’t know that there is a more respectful way to receive. The standards have been lowered to accommodate…lesser-trained people and/or a society that believes anything old most be outdated and therefore changed.
If receiving in the hand is equal to that in the mouth, then why don’t the Pope and the majority of Bishops do it?
I guess it’s because they see something most of us don’t. Christ in his Glory?
The majority of ‘Catholics’ believe artificial birth control is ok. Do we convince ourselves that it is truly the same as NFP? Nope!
If you receive in the hand that’s fine, but remember it isn’t as reverent as in the mouth. Like general absolution isn’t the same as private confession. I am as guilty as anyone because I lack the courage to make a more reverent act in church. However, if I am in the priests line I do receive on the tongue.
Here’s another thought. Eucharistic Adoration: If any of you have gone before the Lord and sat with Him, you know how awesome it is. We never turn our backs to Him while in His presence and we kneel with both knees. (or at least that’s how I was taught) If you’re going to show respect, be consistent.
Keep praying on it. Put more trust and faith in the Lord, don’t worry about germs!
Peace to you,
Scott
P.S. Yes, there some circumstances where one should receive in the hand, but those are rare. One at all possible in the mouth.
M
MrS
Guest
pretty well said…
“in-the-handers” would be right at home at a Protestant communion service.
Those of us who see a need for communion on the tongue would be looked at strangely… like we might believe our communion is really, really, truly, truly, amen, amen, The Real Presence.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Thanks, thanks very much. All I’m doing is exercising a liberty given to me by the CHURCH. And since I rec. in the hand, I guess I don’t really, really, truly, truly, amen, amen, believe in The Real Presence?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You folks who chose to receive on the tongue…have at it. I have no issue with that.
However, don’t waste your time trying to tell the rest of us that it is disrespectful or sinful, because you have nothing to base that on but your own personal preferences and even they are not supported by either the Word of God or the ECF.
Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Nothing in this passage in any way indicates that the apostles put out their tongues to receive the first Eucharist from Christ Himself.
And the ECF don’t support it either:
Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” (Catechetical Lectures 23:22). LINK
and Document
Pax vobsicum,
However, don’t waste your time trying to tell the rest of us that it is disrespectful or sinful, because you have nothing to base that on but your own personal preferences and even they are not supported by either the Word of God or the ECF.
Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Nothing in this passage in any way indicates that the apostles put out their tongues to receive the first Eucharist from Christ Himself.
And the ECF don’t support it either:
Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” (Catechetical Lectures 23:22). LINK
and Document
Pax vobsicum,
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Due to the falling level of charity in this discussion, this thread is now closed.
- Status