Confession of a Eucharistic Minister

[Crusade_Guy]

This is bizarre sounding. Is this what traditionalists worry about, tiny particles of consecrated hosts? I’m sorry, but many people reading this thread would think we are nuts and the members of a giant cult.

St. Paul says that our religion seems foolish to them that are perishing, that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the “wise” and the weak things of the world God has chosen to put to shame the strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, and the things that are not, to bring to naught the things that are…so why are you concerned that outsiders would think we’re nuts? If we are truly dedicated to the Catholic religion, and care about honoring and glorifying Jesus Christ more than anything else, there would be something wrong if we weren’t perceived as nutty or weird. And yes, Traditional Catholics have the utmost respect for Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. God should be treated as God.

The early Christians received in their hands. God knows the nature of the physical universe which he created. Did you know that you shed tens of thousands of skin cells a day? Do you think it is disrespectful to the human body that these cells are trampled upon?

The particles referred to in the article are particles which are visible to the naked eye. The Real Presence is not in microscopic particles but in what is perceived by the naked eye. Just because the early Christians did something does not mean we should. Popes in the past have warned against this attitude which is called antiquarianism. The Church grows and matures in her understanding of the faith and therefore many, many hundreds of years ago decided that out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament and holy orders, only the consecrated hands of priests should handle the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[rwoehmke]

To quote Charlie Brown,“Good grief!”

 

[Caesar]

This is bizarre sounding. Is this what traditionalists worry about, tiny particles of consecrated hosts? I’m sorry, but many people reading this thread would think we are nuts and the members of a giant cult.

The early Christians received in their hands. God knows the nature of the physical universe which he created. Did you know that you shed tens of thousands of skin cells a day? Do you think it is disrespectful to the human body that these cells are trampled upon?

This is the Body of Christ! The Church has always made efforts to ensure that the particles of the Host are not desecrated. And no, the Church has never before recieved in the hands.

 

[Unfinished]

Secondly - Caesar described very accurately the method of distribution on the tongue and the attempts or efforts made to avoid dropping particles. Which I applaud. To complete the chain of logic, though, you and he need to demonstrate that those attempts and efforts DO in fact result in reduced particle droppage.

Honestly, prove to me they don’t. At least with these things set in place they are attempting to avoid profane acts towards the Blessed Sacrament.

I believe that most particles are too small and light to drop directly onto the paten, and instead fall elsewhere. In the alternative they are emitted into the air FROM THE CIBORIUM OR PATEN DIRECTLY due to ITS movement rather than during the actual process of distribution of comunion.

Well now, that would just be your opinion, wouldn’t it?

The host is hardly covered at all times after consecration, so this is entirely possible.

Besides the Host that was elevated, the rest are completely covered at all times until it is time to distribute them.

In other words I’m not convinced, nor have I seen any evidence, that the priest’s efforts actually have any appreciable effect. And you haven’t demonstrated that they do. Get back to me when you can produce such evidence in the way of scientific studies.

Prove to me that the efforts do NOT reduce the amount of particles lost. This study shows a large amount of particles being lost from communion in the hand. Show me one that proves just as many are lost the traditional way.

A little common sense tells me that the less the Host is handled, the less it will crumble. (Ever pass bread from one person to another?) That means moving the Host as little as possible and going right from the ciborium to the tongue.

I serve almost every Sunday. And I have visibly see my priest brush particles off the paten during the purification. Not to mention, Heaven forbid, if he should drop a Host.

Don’t you think it is better to put these measures into place to reduce the “damage” than to say “Well, it doesn’t matter. Particles are going to fall regardless of what we do?”

 

[Crusade_Guy]

I serve almost every Sunday. And I have visibly see my priest brush particles off the paten during the purification. Not to mention, Heaven forbid, if he should drop a Host.

Don’t you think it is better to put these measures into place to reduce the “damage” than to say “Well, it doesn’t matter. Particles are going to fall regardless of what we do?”

EXACTLY. I also serve from time to time and I always notice there are particles on the paten…now if these particles just fall from the host as it is placed on the communicants’ tongues from the ciborium, imagine how many particles are falling all over the floor in the Novus Ordo where almost everyone receives Jesus into their unconsecrated hands and any Tom, Dick or Harry can pass out the hosts.

 

[Caesar]

Yes, I too have noticed that the paten does catch visible particles. And it is not are rare for the Host to fall from the tongue as some may think (or other things- at the chapel I serve at, Father had to put a note in the bulletin telling people not to grab the Host with their teeth).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Church has approved communion in the hand. This article clearly states that Communion in the hand is a “sacrilege.” The Church cannot propose or permit a discipline of Her sacraments that will lead the faithful to impiety, according to the Council of Trent. The practice enjoys at least a negative infallibility (again, it cannot lead the faithful to impiety, cannot be a sacrilege. The Church cannot commit sacrilege). The discipline was recently (January 7) extended to the Church in Poland.

Let us pray that Fr. Grunner and the Fatima Crusader return to the heart of the Church. One more example of arm chair popery.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is the Body of Christ! The Church has always made efforts to ensure that the particles of the Host are not desecrated. And no, the Church has never before recieved in the hands.

Caesar: I’m afraid that isn’t so. It was clearly an Apostolic/Patristic practice. The Church ended it, which She had the liberty to do. The Church restored it, which She also has the liberty to do.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

The Church has approved communion in the hand. This article clearly states that Communion in the hand is a “sacrilege.” The Church cannot propose or permit a discipline of Her sacraments that will lead the faithful to impiety, according to the Council of Trent. The practice enjoys at least a negative infallibility (again, it cannot lead the faithful to impiety, cannot be a sacrilege. The Church cannot commit sacrilege). The discipline was recently (January 7) extended to the Church in Poland.

Let us pray that Fr. Grunner and the Fatima Crusader return to the heart of the Church. One more example of arm chair popery.

I find that difficult to believe, since communion in the hand DOES lead and HAS led to impiety–one of the reasons Luther introduced communion in the hand when he started his revolt. Do you think all of those other Popes and the Council of Trent were wrong when they specifically forbad communion in the hand BECAUSE they thought it would lead to impiety? You either have a misinformed, exagerated view of papal infallibility (at least, only when it concerns the last few popes, i.e. Paul VI and John Paul II) or are misquoting the Council of Trent, or both. Perhaps you should look at the reasons WHY the Church allowed/forbad things in the past and why those in her hierarchy reversed those decisions. For example, WHY did the Church used to forbid communion in the hand? Why did Paul VI allow it? Look into it before you speak.

 

[Caesar]

Caesar: I’m afraid that isn’t so. It was clearly an Apostolic/Patristic practice. The Church ended it, which She had the liberty to do. The Church restored it, which She also has the liberty to do.

I never heard of it as a universal practice, only something done for the sick or in extraordinary cases.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I find that difficult to believe, since communion in the hand DOES lead and HAS led to impiety–**First, WHEN (from a credible, objective source) has communion in the hand lead to impiety? one of the reasons Luther introduced communion in the hand when he started his revolt. You commit the genesis fallacy, ie, that something is wrong because of it’s origin (and you do that poorly, since communion in the hand didn’t have it’s origin with Luther, but with the Apostles) Do you think all of those other Popes and the Council of Trent were wrong when they specifically forbad communion in the hand BECAUSE they thought it would lead to impiety? No, but that’s not how it works. It’s a matter of discipline as opposed to faith and morals (one of the basics that I was taught when I was preparing to enter the Church). The Popes and the Council of Trent acted in entirely good faith on this, but they had no power to bind any future pope on a matter of discipline. They certainly were not wrong, because it isn’t a matter of faith or morals. **You either have a misinformed, exagerated view of papal infallibility (at least, only when it concerns the last few popes, i.e. Paul VI and John Paul II) or are misquoting the Council of Trent, or both. **I suggest you go back and read what the Council of Trent said regarding the authority of the Church to govern her sacraments. I don’t have either a misinformed or exagerated view of papal infallibility, since I’m not talking about faith (dogma or doctrine) or morals, but discipline. Look it up: the discipline of the Church enjoys a NEGATIVE infallibility. That means it may not be the greatest idea on the face of the earth, but once proposed to the faithful, it cannot lead them into impiety. That isn’t to say that impious people cannot do impious things through the act of rec. communion in the hand, but they could do the same by receiving on the tongue. **Perhaps you should look at the reasons WHY the Church allowed/forbad things in the past and why those in her hierarchy reversed those decisions. For example, WHY did the Church used to forbid communion in the hand? Why did Paul VI allow it? Look into it before you speak.

You posted a grand total of 5 times and you’re suggesting that others look into it before they speak!?!? I suggest you do a search of the forums on the topic. It’s been done to death. And learn manners before YOU speak.

I rec. communion on the tongue, BTW.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I never heard of it as a universal practice, only something done for the sick or in extraordinary cases.

No, it wasn’t. It was the original, common practice. Communion on the tongue developed as a result of a growing understanding of Eucharistic devotion…which is why it is a grand thing! We, again, simply shouldn’t try to constrain the consciences of the faithful where the Church has granted liberty. We shouldn’t call what the Church has permitted a sacrilege (it’s an attack on the authority of the Church, intended or unintended).

It’s as wrong to browbeat the faithful for receiving in the hand as it is for the liberal priests and nuns to mock reception on the tongue. Both exist on the foundation of the authority of the Church.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

You posted a grand total of 5 times and you’re suggesting that others look into it before they speak!?!? I suggest you do a search of the forums on the topic. It’s been done to death. And learn manners before YOU speak.

I rec. communion on the tongue, BTW.

The practice of communion-in-the-hand was “first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops” (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).

So, not wanting to publicly reprove a dissident, Paul VI caved in and allowed what had before been considered a grave abuse! The fact that Paul VI thought of him as a “brother bishop” and allowed this practice shows that he was seriously confused about his role as a Pope. Perhaps that Vatican II collegiality at work?

 

[Crusade_Guy]

We shouldn’t call what the Church has permitted a sacrilege (it’s an attack on the authority of the Church, intended or unintended).

But the Church has considered it a sacrilege! Why do you think it was banned for so long? Do you think that truth simply changes with the whim of the current pope or college of bishops?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So, not wanting to publicly reprove a dissident, Paul VI caved in and allowed what had before been considered a grave abuse! The fact that Paul VI thought of him as a “brother bishop” and allowed this practice shows that he was seriously confused about his role as a Pope. Perhaps that Vatican II collegiality at work?

It wasn’t considered a grave abuse. It was an apostolic/patristic practice. Are you saying that the Apostles and their disciples and the early fathers gravely abused the Body of Christ? Communion on the tongue developed in the Church as a devotion without predjudice toward what went before.

And who are YOU to instruct the pope? “By what authority?”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But the Church has considered it a sacrilege! Why do you think it was banned for so long? Do you think that truth simply changes with the whim of the current pope or college of bishops?

Not so, it was a development. Try and grasp that I’m not suggesting that it was a bad development. I’m simply saying that the Church didn’t regard what went before as an abuse, as you seem to suggest.

And climb down off your rhetorical high horse. “Truth.” It patently ISN’T a matter of truth, it’s a matter of discipline.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

It wasn’t considered a grave abuse. It was an apostolic/patristic practice. Are you saying that the Apostles and their disciples and the early fathers gravely abused the Body of Christ? Communion on the tongue developed in the Church as a devotion without predjudice toward what went before.

And who are YOU to instruct the pope? “By what authority?”

How do you know the Apostles gave communion in the hand? Communion in the hand is not an intrinsic evil but the Church after maturing decided not to allow it because it leads to confusion about the Real Presence and the Blessed Sacrament should not be treated as ordinary food. Only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch it.
Yes, there are a lot of areas where I wish the current Popes (esp. Paul VI and John Paul II) would have listened to some sort of instruction, that is, CATHOLIC instruction. The Assisi travesty, for example. I hope you realize that whenever you support one of the innovations of the most recent popes you are contradicting what previous popes have said…you are a bit selective about whom you apply your pope-worship (figurative) to.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How do you know the Apostles gave communion in the hand? Communion in the hand is not an intrinsic evil but the Church after maturing decided not to allow it because it leads to confusion about the Real Presence and the Blessed Sacrament should not be treated as ordinary food. Only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch it. **The idea that communion on the tongue was the norm from Apostolic times is a radical traditionalist fantasy and those were not even slightly the motives of the Church in making communion on the tongue the norm (it was, however, begun and continued as a Eucharistic devotion). I challenge you to produce credible, objective proof of your assertion. Bad scholarship is just plain bad scholarship. And again, it is a mutable matter of discipline that the proper authority may allow or disallow. Your assertion that only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch It is a subjective opinion and can be seen to be such because A) the Church permits the laity to touch the Sacred Species by helping the priest to distribute Holy Communion and take it to the sick and B) the Church permits the laity to choose to receive in the hand. **

Yes, there are a lot of areas where I wish the current Popes (esp. Paul VI and John Paul II) would have listened to some sort of instruction, that is, CATHOLIC instruction. The Assisi travesty, for example. I hope you realize that whenever you support one of the innovations of the most recent popes you are contradicting what previous popes have said…you are a bit selective about whom you apply your ultramontanism (if it can be called that) to.

**I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m an ultramontanist (esp. since you derided the concept of collegiality in another post), BUT: first, YOU don’t determine what is Catholic. Neither do I, but I don’t THINK that I do. Secondly, I have honest questions and concerns about the the Assisi happening myself. That was NOT, however, a discipline imposed or permitted to the Church. That was a meeting, possibly a very regretable one. Third, I haven’t contradicted any pope on a matter of faith or morals, OR, for that matter, discipline, since any previous pope’s disciplinary directives would have enjoyed at least the same negative infallibility as current popes, ie, communion solely on the tongue would have enjoyed that same infallibility, and indeed still does, since no discipline promulgated by the Church can lead the faithful to impiety. **

**And you obviously, between posts, have determined NOT to brush up on your manners. **

 

[LilyM]

Honestly, prove to me they don’t. At least with these things set in place they are attempting to avoid profane acts towards the Blessed Sacrament.

You’re the one who’s suggesting that a church-approved practice is sacrilegous and claiming to know for a fact that more profanation takes place with communion in the hand. I am honestly saying I don’t know either way, because there’s no decent evidence about communion on the tongue.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Prove to me that the efforts do NOT reduce the amount of particles lost. This study shows a large amount of particles being lost from communion in the hand. Show me one that proves just as many are lost the traditional way.

Don’t you think it is better to put these measures into place to reduce the “damage” than to say “Well, it doesn’t matter. Particles are going to fall regardless of what we do?”

It is NOT better to take measures if they’re ineffective. Perhaps different measures are called for, but that’s not my decision to make. Or yours.

Again, I have yet to see any proof of their effectiveness. Again, I’m not saying they aren’t effective (not in the slightest) but I haven’t seen any non-anecdotal evidence that they are.

And again, because you’re the one suggesting reversal of a practice that has been approved by the church, the onus is on you to show why it should be.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

**I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m an ultramontanist (esp. since you derided the concept of collegiality in another post), BUT: first, YOU don’t determine what is Catholic. Neither do I, but I don’t THINK that I do. Secondly, I have honest questions and concerns about the the Assisi happening myself. That was NOT, however, a discipline imposed or permitted to the Church. That was a meeting, possibly a very regretable one. Third, I haven’t contradicted any pope on a matter of faith or morals, OR, for that matter, discipline, since any previous pope’s disciplinary directives would have enjoyed at least the same negative infallibility as current popes, ie, communion solely on the tongue would have enjoyed that same infallibility, and indeed still does, since no discipline promulgated by the Church can lead the faithful to impiety. **

**And you obviously, between posts, have determined NOT to brush up on your manners. **

Disciplinary matters are not infallible and do not enjoy negative infallibility.