K
kage_ar
Guest
Do you have an official link? I have seen the secular media skew things that deal with the Church one too many times.
- Status
C
Cat
Guest
Are you from the United Kingdom?
You use the term “mate” and earlier, you used the term “pet.” These are UK words, used seldom in the U.S.
The only reason I bring it up is that you may have a very different picture of the Catholic Church than we do in the U.S.
I lived about 65 miles west of Dan-Man016, in Northern Illinois, and I can say that our Catholic Churches are reverent and orthodox, and that our bishops are truly apostles of Jesus Christ.
Before I ever became Catholic, years and years ago, I started listening to Bishop Thomas Doran on his weekly radio show, and I remember thinking, “This man sounds like an apostle.” Keep in mind that I had NO IDEA of what “apostolic succession” was or that it even existed, because I was a very happy and involved evangelical Protestant. But I recognized him as an apostle.
I get quite upset when people on this forum or in any situation make general accusations against the Catholic bishops. This is what President Obama is doing right now–in a misguided attempt to convince the world that we are now “friendly and open,” he is criticizing his predecessors and accusing them of heinous acts and even crimes. He thinks he is honestly facing reality, but what he is doing is very wrong and dangerous.
I think the same thing can be said of those who throw a blanket attack at the bishops of the Catholic Church. Certainly there have been some real winners in the mix, but if as these critics say, the entire lot of the bishops have been scoundrels and apostates, then the Catholic Church looks really, really BAD.
And if the Catholic Church has been so bad, then it is no wonder that people make a decision that they will find their own way through the various moral issues, since the Church is unreliable. And that means that they may make the decision that artificial contraception, or abortion, or divorce, etc. aren’t really sins–the Church was wrong about Communion in the hand, and it’s probably wrong about these issues as well.
Does what I say make sense to you? Do you see how undermining the Church is not a good strategy? Sure, face facts, but make sure you facing FACTS, not just making generalizations.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
I believe the emphasis is not on WHAT we receive, but Who we receive.
Additionally, people who receive Holy Communion in the hand and not on the tongue wouldn’t be successful in trying to imagine they know what it’s like for those who receive Holy Communion on the tongue … because they don’t know. I know what both are like, because I have received and still (on occasion - in order to comply with my chaplain’s/pastor’s/bishop’s wishes) receive both ways. But my preference by far, is on the tongue.
What my dear old dad told me once (when I was having trouble years ago receiving from certain extraordinary ministers), made sense though it was phrased rather brashly:
" If we really knew Who comes to us in Holy Communion, we’d receive from the hand of a chimpanzee."
Below is an excerpt from DOMINICAE CENAE , I’ve tried to leave out what could potentially become added fuel to a Holy Communion on the tongue versus in the hand, debate…which so many previous threads have exploded into. I hope that won’t be the case here, because we’re getting a very nice cross-section of opinions which can help us all reflect.
DOMINICAE CENAE can be read in full at this link:
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02dc.htm
I ask my fellow members to note, in the excerpt, the two green bold italicized passages:
DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH
ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARIST
…
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.
It’s stated in previous posts, a Bishop’s authority is co-dependent on the College of Bishops which is , in turn, co-dependent on its unity with the Apostolic See. Mamselle Duroc’s post echoes a recurring question in the thread : Does the Bishop have the authority to prohibit reception of Holy Communion on the tongue?
In his Letter Dominicae Cenae cited directly above, John Paul II rightfully calls the traditional way of receiving Holy Communion - on the tongue, a “free choice”.
Technically speaking, a bishop does not have the authority to forbid any of the faithful from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. It does not fall within his discretionary powers. Bluntly, that’s the way things stand. But if one in authority or his minister wrongly thinks such authority exists, don’t be too surprised if they try and enforce it.
A bishop may, as a concerned pastor of his flock, (and based on the information available [obviously the accuracy of that information won’t always meet the same degree of reliability or veracity]) request that we receive Communion in the hand, temporarily as an initiative to curtail a perceived health risk to the faithful and to the general population. I suspect that’s what has happened here.
Did anyone notice the delicate wording of the last part of the excerpt …:“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, …” …?
Someone(s) wanted to be very careful not to discourage anyone from receiving Holy Communion… because it is an extremely sensitive aspect of our faith. Apparently, in the case(s) and diocese(s) at hand,this sensitivity as it would apply to those who receive Communion on the tongue may not have warranted the same careful consideration.
Perhaps those who receive Communion in the hand and who are responding to this thread could (please, just for this thread) show a little charity and measure their responses. After all they aren’t the ones stuck on the end of the skewer on this issue…they’re only observers sitting around the campfire.
This type of adjustment for the faithful who choose to obey, though not technically obliged to do so, is not some transient momentary thing. It can be a distraction/preoccupation during the entire Mass up to and after Holy Communion and can give rise to some really intense sentiments of anxiety.
It appears swine flu originated (or was first documented) around the year 1918 …in the vicinity of 50 years before reception of Holy Communion in the hand did. I wonder what certain bishops were advocating during those times …
(ps: If I ever see a chimp inside our church I’ll be changing parishes that day…[sorry dad])
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
I have to agree. We might have some creative journalism happening there. The first thing I noticed was that the actual quotation marks did not appear until the words, “While avoiding any semblance of panic…”
So the words *the Host will not be placed directly on the tongue * are not contained in quotes in the article … leaves a lot of room for interpretation … hmmmm
npatrol:
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yes, of course. I stand humbly corrected.
W
weepixie71
Guest
nope sorry. all i know is i went to church and father made an announcement that bishop jenky said no communion on the tongue. since it is a tridentine mass there was no need to announce the removal of wine or handshaking or holding hands during the Our Father.
i am proud to say not one person got up to go to Holy Communion. this sunday, we are going to drive to springfield il diocese to go to mass because they are allowing you to receive communion on the tongue there.
W
weepixie71
Guest
i went to a tridentine mass!!! the priest said bishop jenky announced we are not to receive communion on the tongue until further notice. i see no reason why a priest would lie about it.I have to agree. We might have some creative journalism happening there. The first thing I noticed was that the actual quotation marks did not appear until the words, “While avoiding any semblance of panic…”
So the words *the Host will not be placed directly on the tongue * are not contained in quotes in the article … leaves a lot of room for interpretation … hmmmm
C
Cat
Guest
You’re proud that you and these people refused to receive Jesus?
I’m sorry, but I find that very sad.
M
Matt33
Guest
Not to pile on you here and believe me I probably agree with you on these matters. But isn’t it possible that the Priest is misunderstanding here? It wouldn’t suprise me if this is just a news point or directive that is misunderstood and perhaps over reacted to by those who have to be a litttle on gaurd about tradition. I’ll wager people recived on the tounge at NO masses in that diocees on Sunday. I could be wrong though. All this misinformation and confusion over who has authority over what is concerning, especially if we ever have a real crisis, (which we probably will)
N
nice2000
Guest
Hi weepixie, I agree, I rather drive a thousands miles to receive communion on the tongue then to receive it in my hand… I will take my chances. I am sure if Jesus and the Virgin Mary allowed me to get sick with the swine flu, so be it. I’ll willingly suffer for poor souls.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
You’re PROUD of this? How very sad.
It is a very un-Catholic attitude to hold in such contempt a practice permitted by the Church. We are permitted by indult to choose whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue (I receive on the tongue). The disciplinary practices of the Church enjoy at the least a negative infallibility, in that they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. To say you are proud of the above is amazing.
I
Indyann
Guest
I, too find it very sad that some have forgotton that pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
Why not have the humility to obey the shepherd that God has sent?
He is not asking you to do anything sinful in receiving in the hand. But only to lay aside your own desire for the good of all, for the time being.
I
Indyann
Guest
But would all those YOU infect be willing to suffer for poor souls? What if some were to die? Would you be considered a murderer?Hi weepixie, I agree, I rather drive a thousands miles to receive communion on the tongue then to receive it in my hand… I will take my chances. I am sure if Jesus and the Virgin Mary allowed me to get sick with the swine flu, so be it. I’ll willingly suffer for poor souls.
M
Mamselle_Duroc
Guest
I would never go so far as to say that I’m ‘proud’ that I didn’t go up for Communion this past Sunday. That would be an inaccurate summary of my feelings. I was heartbroken that as someone who never receives on the hand, I felt compelled by my own personal conscience to stay in the pew.
Please, read NeedImprovement’s post that so eloquently stated the difficult position for those of us who receive on the tongue. It’s not so easy as you make it sound.
I would also like to point out that one isn’t necessarily lacking in humility because one refuses to receive in the hand. Nobody is obligated to receive Communion every week. My choice is to refrain until the time comes when our bishop permits us to receive according to the norm.
With all respect, I would like to request some charity for those of us who are actually effected by these guidelines. It’s hard, and it’s heartbreaking.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I agree.
I’m afraid that I don’t understand how one can rationalize that making a decision to refuse the sacrament is a good decision, one based solely on how one would receive it.
A little childish, if you will. “I can’t receive communion the way I want so I’m going home without it”. Perhaps very sad is a better way to describe it.
X
xoxoJesus4Ever
Guest
Hi, I’m new but I have a friend in his late 40s that says it is unacceptable to accept communion by placing your left hand over your right hand in the sign of the cross, bowing an d accepting it that way. He said it was traditional in passover to accept food placed by another on the tongue, therefore it is more proper to accept it on the tongue? I know a lot of older people pre-vatican II do this. I have always been taught to bow before the person ahead of me and then make the sign of the cross with my hands and then accept the body, say Amen, and move to the Blood for full communion, howeverDo to the Swine Flu, the bishop where I am from has forbidden his whole diocese to receive Communion on the tongue. We can only receive Christ in our hands. This includes people who attend the Tridentine Mass.
Am I the only one finding this odd since there is only 3 confirmed cases in our whole state of Illinois since last I checked?
Is anyone out there going through something similar?
I’m also a bit distressed at my Catholic friend by stating he will NOT shake hands with anyone and see’s it as blasphemeous (sp?) and I found that to be profoundly abusurd because we are to all love one another.I’ve heard hugging one another is a better form than even hand-shaking but then again, with the epidemic now going on, just a head nod or hand-wave makes sense. I really still have Faith, I feel that taking away full communion, well, I believe Jesus and God our All Mighty Father will not allow us to get ill. Now, there have been known cases I’ve heard of getting Hepatitus B from the blood but that’s hearsay so I can’t really comment on that.
I really feel a lot of Catholics are feeling hurt and not in full communion because of the flu thing and with only a small amount dying from the flu, it really shouldn’t be a cause for panic. I think its the news that throws things out of proportion for everyone.
I say, STAY away from the news, it will only irritate you. So Let us all pray for this to go away worldwide for all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus.
I’ve heard on Catholic Radio that its acceptable to just take the body and not the blood, but, that too really defeats the purpose of full communion.
May the Lord Jesus bless you all.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
It’s pretty easy to trust the Church. She cannot mislead you. She’s prevented from doing so by Christ’s promise. The hand is no cleaner, no more pure than the tongue, either physically OR spiritually. One is not “taking” Communion by rec. in the hand, because it is still placed there by the legitimate minister of Holy Communion.
M
Mamselle_Duroc
Guest
I do trust the Church. I have no objections to other people doing it, whether they generally do or will just for the course of the flu. However, the Church does not ask us to receive in the hand. The Church states that the faithful always have the right to receive on the tongue. Holy Mother Church permits in certain places for the faithful to receive in the hand, but She also supports those who feel that they personally cannot in good conscience receive in that way.
I won’t be receiving in the hand. I say nothing derisive about those who choose to do so. You don’t offer us the support that the Church does; can you at least in charity refrain from assuming that we’re simply being prideful?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But I’m pretty sure that the Holy See would affirm a bishop’s authority to regulate this in the event of a pandemic (if there is one). We don’t celebrate Mass on Good Friday, yet the Holy See permitted it for the earthquake victim in April. Common sense is probably expected to prevail in readings of canon law and the Holy See is probably not going to overrule a bishop in a situation where he’s “on the ground” and there is NO harm to the Faith in his ruling (and there is no harm to the faith by reception in the hand, since the Church permits it, it has ancient, perhaps even Apostolic antecedents, etc.).
As for what I assume, I didn’t use the word “proud,” now did I? And bear in mind, I also receive on the tongue (except right now and until this “crisis” passes), so “I” am “we.”
T
Trilor
Guest
Only communion on the hand is allowed here in my archdiocese, and no receiving from the cup, on account of the swine flu
- Status