Confession of a Eucharistic Minister

  • Thread starter Thread starter marymonde
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Rykell,
**We do not give a hoot how you want to receive, any more than we care that you define “antiquity” as 38 yrs. (which would make VATII REALLY out of touch, wouldn’t it?)
We are giving one of the MANY reasons why we attach to the Traditional Mass, as it is where we can receive the way we think and (likewise the Church did as well), best FOR US, and our posterity, not anyone else. We make those preferences public here on the Traditional Catholic Forum, and anyone who may be convinced of our position is free to seek the Traditional Mass where such can be had.
For those who do not agree, post your reasons, and be done with it. Let the readers then make up their own minds.
You will not change ours nor we yours.

Do what you will; catch it in the air for all we care.

You can go onto the Liturgy Forum and get all the agreement you’ll ever want.
But the TLM has & ONLY has reception one way.
In your position the only exception should be if a person has no hands. Then I don’t know where you’d want it put.

**
**
 
Yes, we will go in circles if you fail to read the replies in full. Shall I repeat the question that you are reluctant to answer? Where in today’s mind of the Church have the bishops publicly stated that communion in the hand is a lesser good, and that on the tongue is more sublime or “higher?” And where do the Bishops unilaterally state in present language that the latter is the preferred manner of receiving?

I agree that there was a document, and I read it. No argument there. That it is an older document expressing some misgivings by the bishops 38 years ago has little bearing on the present mind of the church and is a subjective argument when the Church specifically approves this manner of receiving communion.

And, after reading your last post, I agree wholeheartedly that you should be able to receive as you prefer. I have not given my personal preference one way or another, have I? Nor will I state my preference, because it is not important. The objection I have is that those who do CHOOSE to receive in the hand are not receiving in a less worthy manner, and it is a futile error to judge the hearts of such persons.
 
Rykell said:
Yes, we will go in circles if you fail to read the replies in full. Shall I repeat the question that you are reluctant to answer? Where in today’s mind of the Church have the bishops publicly stated that communion in the hand is a lesser good, and that on the tongue is more sublime or “higher?” And where do the Bishops unilaterally state in present language that the latter is the preferred manner of receiving?
Click to expand...
Ok, here’s the answer:
“Today’s” Church has no proposal that states that the CIH is less “sublime” than COT. She is DEAD SILENT. Period.The same goes for CIH being more “sublime” than COT.
In fact, the only recent superlatives taken by the Church was that 1969 document. So we can only go back to the last “sublime” reception document. Pending an overriding document, any previous document on the matter stands…that’s traditional also, BTW.

Now, the TLM has tightly defined ritual, including COT. We adhere to that. CIH in a TLM would be considered a novelty by the adherents based on all the Church has said during the life of the TLM for the last 700 or whatever years.
Yet another reason we attend the TLM is that we are not expecting a 2007 model of “today’s” church. We only do that with our cars, computers and cell phones, but not our worship.
We would only make a change if the church said to do it with good reason, and no such has ever been proposed for a TLM, and it won’t be because there is no good reason. She has already covered that in that document & all the way back into “extreme” antiquity (that would be more than 100 yrs in your paradigm.).
 
Well, the Church has not exactly been dead silent since 1969. This article is very well written, and if you care to take the time and read it, you may be much better informed.
Then, Pope Paul VI confirmed this instruction with his authority effective that date, June 17, 1977. What is noted along with this permission of receiving Our Lord in our hand is the following:
Click to expand...
a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.
Click to expand...
b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.
Click to expand...
And the words of Pope John Paul II:
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.[12]
Click to expand...
How in the world can it be “universal liturgical law forbidding communion in the hand”, as some “traditionalists” argue, when the Holy Father writes that in those countries where it has been authorized, it can be done with profound reverence and devotion? This argument that the Holy Father is allowing “universal liturgical law” to be broken is ridiculous as in the very same encyclical he accepts the practice as long as it is done in a reverential fashion.
Click to expand...
Any “Traditionalist” who tries to cite the Holy Father against a lay person being able to touch the Eucharist with their hand, totally ignores the fact that he says one indeed can receive the Lord on their hand with reverence and devotion. Thus, it has been granted to not only Extraordinary Ministers to touch the host, who then can distribute the host, but also the people who can receive it in either fashion of on the tongue or in the hand. "
Click to expand...
God bless you TNT, and if you prefer in the TLM to receive COT, I honor that. Please respect and honor those who prefer CIH without assuming they are less worthy or not devout if they do.
 
TNT said:
Ok, here’s the answer:
“Today’s” Church has no proposal that states that the CIH is less “sublime” than COT. She is DEAD SILENT. Period.The same goes for CIH being more “sublime” than COT.
In fact, the only recent superlatives taken by the Church was that 1969 document. So we can only go back to the last “sublime” reception document. Pending an overriding document, any previous document on the matter stands…that’s traditional also, BTW.

Now, the TLM has tightly defined ritual, including COT. We adhere to that. CIH in a TLM would be considered a novelty by the adherents based on all the Church has said during the life of the TLM for the last 700 or whatever years.
Yet another reason we attend the TLM is that we are not expecting a 2007 model of “today’s” church. We only do that with our cars, computers and cell phones, but not our worship.
We would only make a change if the church said to do it with good reason, and no such has ever been proposed for a TLM, and it won’t be because there is no good reason. She has already covered that in that document & all the way back into “extreme” antiquity (that would be more than 100 yrs in your paradigm.).
Click to expand...
Well said, TNT. This post of yours echoes my thoughts, as well. 🙂
 
And whilst I think of it, what a wonderful name for a book! Hmmmmmm…

Or how about The thoughts of an Ex-Extraordinary Ministry of Holy Communion.

What think ye would it sell???
 
I skipped thru a lot of the posts, but I’m thinking … “Jesus broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said, ‘Take this, all of you, and eat it’…” I don’t envision Him hand-feeding his disciples. I don’t see why there is such a big deal about taking communion in the hand. Just my late-night mind wandering…
 
Eris said:
I skipped thru a lot of the posts, but I’m thinking … “Jesus broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said, ‘Take this, all of you, and eat it’…” I don’t envision Him hand-feeding his disciples. ** I don’t see why there is such a big deal about taking communion in the hand. ** Just my late-night mind wandering…
Click to expand...
Yes well you also realize that the Last Supper took place directly after a large meal…this breaks the fast commanded by the Church.

So…we ought to remove the Eucharistic fast entirely, after all the Apostles ate food before they recieved! So whats the big deal.

In fact, while were at it, lets remove all the words from the Mass itself except for “this is my body, this is my blood” Since those are the only truly neccesary words. Only those words actually consecrate the host, so again, whats the big deal?

Why dont we remove Churches too…since the earliest Christians had the Eucharistic celebration in their private homes (with priests of course, but neverthelss an absence of a church structure) So Church architecture and centuries of traditional art are all superfluos…so whats the big deal with all these modern buldings used as parishes?

Indeed. We ought to remove all references to Mary, the Saints, etc. etc. just because Jesus probably didnt mention them at the Last Supper. All we really need is Jesus after all, praying to Mary is very good, and we Catholics have no problem with it…but Jesus alone IS allowed…so whats the big deal?

You’ll find that many things we do during the Mass was not done by Jesus or his immediate succesors for many years…but they should NOT be dropped. And they are well worth fighting for.

Communion on the tongue alone should be enforced…and it is very much worth fighting for. Redgardless of what took place at the Last Supper.

Recieving in the hand, and drinking the Precious Blood from the hands of a eucharistic minister…is always going to be a big deal.
 
Eris said:
I skipped thru a lot of the posts, but I’m thinking … “Jesus broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said, ‘Take this, all of you, and eat it’…” I don’t envision Him hand-feeding his disciples. I don’t see why there is such a big deal about taking communion in the hand. Just my late-night mind wandering…
Click to expand...
I have to remind myself that this “Last Supper” was ALSO in effect an ordination of priests. It was NOT a general audience of the laity and therefore not an example of Church congregation practice.
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Communion on the tongue alone should be enforced…and it is very much worth fighting for. Redgardless of what took place at the Last Supper.

Recieving in the hand, and drinking the Precious Blood from the hands of a eucharistic minister…is always going to be a big deal.
Click to expand...
I can see it’s a big deal to you. Since receiving on the hand is allowed by the Church, it’s really not a big deal to me. Sorry if that offends you. I just can’t get that fired up about it. I can get fired up about the hand-holding (egads, how I hate that! 🙂 ), but not receiving in the hand. But surely no one is stopping you from receiving on the tongue? If someone is, then you absolutely ought to be fired up about that. I would be really offended if an EOM refused to let me receive on the hand, as I am allowed that by the Church. So you should be able to receive on the tongue as you like. Please don’t get all offended if I don’t do the same, tho’. I don’t like anyone’s hand coming at my teeth/mouth (no, I don’t like going to the dentist, either 🙂 ) I’m weird that way…🙂
Eris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top