R
ruslan
Guest
There’s a link on this page to Bishop Vann’s statement.
fwdioc.org/default.aspx?ID=1084&md=142
:heaven: :harp:
fwdioc.org/default.aspx?ID=1084&md=142
:heaven: :harp:
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
There are several considerations here.
Fraternally,
JR
- Whether one is a mass celebrated in the EF or the Of, it is not a sin to receive communion in the hand. It is a matter of form, not morals. There is no moral law in the Church that forbids communion in the hand.
- The reason for not receiving communion on the tongue, at this time, is a health reason. The bishops are acting out of concern for the faithful and for their clergy.
- The priest is not the only person who can distribute communion in the EF. A deacon can too. The hands of the deacon are not consecrated. The consecration of hand is part of the ordination to the presbyterate, because the hands are used to bless and consecrate. When one says “my hands are not consecrated; therefore, I’m not worthy to touch the Eucharist,” one is forgetting that neither are the deacon’s and he is an ordinary minister of holy communion.
- Finally, depriving oneself from receiving the Eucharist, because it must be in the hand until further notice by the bishop, is depriving oneself of needed spiritual nourishment. I can’t see the logic here. I too receive on the tongue. But I have no problem receiving on the hand, if that’s all that’s available right now. The important thing is to receive the Eucharist with dignity and reverence. We do what we can with the circumstances that we have.
Fraternally,
JR
S
Shin
Guest
Keep up your good work and do not be shocked by those who long ago decided not to be shocked about so many horrors – and dismiss all the motivations behind them blindly (one hopes).
I admire your self restraint and service to the Lord.
It is sometimes only by not receiving that we can truly receive the Lord.
K
kage_ar
Guest
From this document, bold mine. We can see that Biship Vann has not forbidden reception on the tougue. Makes me wonder if other Bishops requests are being misunderstood?
"
The faithful should be encouraged to receive Communion in their hands and not on their tongue. "
K
kage_ar
Guest
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
This article appears at several sites, the copy below came from
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/girmusa1975.htm
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.
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.
c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of Communion in the hand.
d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established. Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide the necessary instruction. (See also the Roman Ritual, “Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass,” no. 21.)
*…After several hours of searching,I wasn’t successful in finding the actual
'official" appendix document , but I did find this one at the USCCB site, in which basically identical wording to paragraph b above appears [see paragraph 9 at the link below]. *usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml
If I understood the info links leading to the USCCB link just above, that particular document was published in 2005.
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/girmusa1975.htm
- DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNION
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.
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.
c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of Communion in the hand.
d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established. Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide the necessary instruction. (See also the Roman Ritual, “Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass,” no. 21.)
*…After several hours of searching,I wasn’t successful in finding the actual
'official" appendix document , but I did find this one at the USCCB site, in which basically identical wording to paragraph b above appears [see paragraph 9 at the link below]. *usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml
If I understood the info links leading to the USCCB link just above, that particular document was published in 2005.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
First off, it should be evident at this point that the Bishops (Conference / USCCB) are not forbidding reception of Holy Communion on the tongue – neither are they even hinting it should be suggested.
From this link usccb.org/liturgy/swineflu.shtml ,
All they have stated on the matter is
1.
What measures should be taken in Roman Catholic liturgies in the United States of America now? Priests, deacons, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should be especially reminded of the need to practice good hygiene. Ministers of Holy Communion should be encouraged to wash their hands before Mass begins, or even to use an alcohol based anti-bacterial solution before and after distributing Holy Communion. They should instruct people who feel ill not to receive from the cup.
If we believe a Bishop can forbid the faithful from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, it would have to be due to an incomplete understanding of how the Church governs. It can be complicated.
A bishop has to be in communion with the College of Bishops and the College of Bishops never acts without it’s head – the Holy See , which in terms of actual governance, “…refers specifically to the position of the Holy Father, who ‘by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered’ (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, no. 22), and by extension the Curia…”
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0561.html
The erroneous assumption which seems to be made repeatedly in this thread has to do with equating reception of Holy Communion on the tongue with reception in the hand. While the two are both permitted in certain dioceses, from a perspective of law , they are anything but equal.
Reception of Holy Communion in the hand is an indult. “…Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law…” newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm
On the other hand (pardon the unintentional pun) reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is the common law of the Church ; as evidenced in previous posts ,the law as referred to, reiterated and reconfirmed in MEMORIALE DOMINI , DOMINICAE CENAE and REDEMTIONIS SACRAMENTUM.
Because the Holy Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Christian life, our reception of Our Blessed Lord in this most Holy Sacrament of the altar is central…central to our faith and central to our life in Him. It isn’t just some little side issue…it is The issue.
The supreme authority of the Church – the College of Bishops, in communion with the Holy See says it is the norm, the traditional way and is a Catholic’s “free choice” and “always” so ; their right - to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. No bishop has the authority to repudiate that right. The USCCB’s statement on the swine flu re liturgies is completely in harmony with the aforementioned.
In law, one cannot usurp or supplant the common law with an indult, otherwise in no time at all the common law would cease to exist … actually , so would the indult as an indult.
One document (Memoriale Domini) should have been enough to make this clear :
“From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be **offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful…”/**B]
We should thank Mamselle Duroc and some other follow members for being so candid
Chiltepin post 116 “I’m sorry for declaring my heartache…”
Post 19 “… I …had a deacon very rudely shake his head and bark at me “No, in your hand!” I was horrified, panicked and complied. Then went back to the pew and cried. I wish I had just turned around but I was so startled.”
Weepixie71 post 66 “…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.”
Nice2000 post 70 “Hi weepixie, I agree, I rather drive a thousands miles to receive communion on the tongue then to receive it in my hand.”
Their posts indicate that the Holy Father and the College of Bishops knew exactly what the consequences would be : “…offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful….”
It is understandable that those who receive Holy Communion in the hand might not be able to identify with those who receive on the tongue regarding specific efforts coercing them to receive in the hand.
But maybe, before one more fellow member posts a “suck it up” or “deal with it” comment, the waiter could pour us all a round of correct understanding of Church law as it presently stands and we could suck that up first and then pray for several bishops whom the waiter is unable to reach at this time.
You see, the particular bishop(s) in question are not proposing an alternate way of receiving Holy Communion to the faithful who receive on the tongue … they are removing or interfering with the only way these brothers and sisters of ours know how … which happens to be the common law.
The time of Holy Communion, which should be sacred and serene is being turned into a protracted time of torment for them. What ever happened to “…Happy are those who are called to His supper” ?
Bouquet to MamselleDuroc for : "This has such a sting for us who receive only by tongue, but it’s of the utmost importance that we remain respectful, and that we assume the best motives. "
From this link usccb.org/liturgy/swineflu.shtml ,
All they have stated on the matter is
1.
What measures should be taken in Roman Catholic liturgies in the United States of America now? Priests, deacons, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should be especially reminded of the need to practice good hygiene. Ministers of Holy Communion should be encouraged to wash their hands before Mass begins, or even to use an alcohol based anti-bacterial solution before and after distributing Holy Communion. They should instruct people who feel ill not to receive from the cup.
If we believe a Bishop can forbid the faithful from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, it would have to be due to an incomplete understanding of how the Church governs. It can be complicated.
A bishop has to be in communion with the College of Bishops and the College of Bishops never acts without it’s head – the Holy See , which in terms of actual governance, “…refers specifically to the position of the Holy Father, who ‘by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered’ (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, no. 22), and by extension the Curia…”
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0561.html
The erroneous assumption which seems to be made repeatedly in this thread has to do with equating reception of Holy Communion on the tongue with reception in the hand. While the two are both permitted in certain dioceses, from a perspective of law , they are anything but equal.
Reception of Holy Communion in the hand is an indult. “…Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law…” newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm
On the other hand (pardon the unintentional pun) reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is the common law of the Church ; as evidenced in previous posts ,the law as referred to, reiterated and reconfirmed in MEMORIALE DOMINI , DOMINICAE CENAE and REDEMTIONIS SACRAMENTUM.
Because the Holy Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Christian life, our reception of Our Blessed Lord in this most Holy Sacrament of the altar is central…central to our faith and central to our life in Him. It isn’t just some little side issue…it is The issue.
The supreme authority of the Church – the College of Bishops, in communion with the Holy See says it is the norm, the traditional way and is a Catholic’s “free choice” and “always” so ; their right - to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. No bishop has the authority to repudiate that right. The USCCB’s statement on the swine flu re liturgies is completely in harmony with the aforementioned.
In law, one cannot usurp or supplant the common law with an indult, otherwise in no time at all the common law would cease to exist … actually , so would the indult as an indult.
One document (Memoriale Domini) should have been enough to make this clear :
“From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be **offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful…”/**B]
We should thank Mamselle Duroc and some other follow members for being so candid
Chiltepin post 116 “I’m sorry for declaring my heartache…”
Post 19 “… I …had a deacon very rudely shake his head and bark at me “No, in your hand!” I was horrified, panicked and complied. Then went back to the pew and cried. I wish I had just turned around but I was so startled.”
Weepixie71 post 66 “…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.”
Nice2000 post 70 “Hi weepixie, I agree, I rather drive a thousands miles to receive communion on the tongue then to receive it in my hand.”
Their posts indicate that the Holy Father and the College of Bishops knew exactly what the consequences would be : “…offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful….”
It is understandable that those who receive Holy Communion in the hand might not be able to identify with those who receive on the tongue regarding specific efforts coercing them to receive in the hand.
But maybe, before one more fellow member posts a “suck it up” or “deal with it” comment, the waiter could pour us all a round of correct understanding of Church law as it presently stands and we could suck that up first and then pray for several bishops whom the waiter is unable to reach at this time.
You see, the particular bishop(s) in question are not proposing an alternate way of receiving Holy Communion to the faithful who receive on the tongue … they are removing or interfering with the only way these brothers and sisters of ours know how … which happens to be the common law.
The time of Holy Communion, which should be sacred and serene is being turned into a protracted time of torment for them. What ever happened to “…Happy are those who are called to His supper” ?
Bouquet to MamselleDuroc for : "This has such a sting for us who receive only by tongue, but it’s of the utmost importance that we remain respectful, and that we assume the best motives. "
T
TruthisBeauty7
Guest
the truth comes out
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Our parish does this every week, all year around. The pastor also reiterates at the beginning of cold and flu season that it is NOT a sin to miss Mass on account of real sickness, and might even be a sin to attend, if in coming the health of others would be put at risk. He cautions against those who are likely to have a communicable disease from receiving from the cup, even if they are otherwise well enough to attend Mass.
The change has been that the cup is not even offered generally to the faithful, and it is very strongly urged that no one receive on the tongue.
W
weepixie71
Guest
i knew i could count on you guys!!! (Doing a happy dance)
im writing to my priest and bishop. thank you thank you thank you!!!
im writing to my priest and bishop. thank you thank you thank you!!!
V
vee8
Guest
I havent read the whole thread but just wanted to add that its the same here. I dont know if the bishop said something or each parish decided individually.Do 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?
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
(* @ jaygo : I meant to include a quote from your post [you and your boys] which was so pertinent, but I kept exceeding the 6000 character limit for a post and had to cut… sorry 
)
There seems to be varied answers to questions such as how the virus spreads, how long it can survive on non porous surfaces ( a common response is from 2 to 8 hours) etc.
First eating pork was okay, then this week the WHO posted a warning that the virus can survive on frozen pork still okay if you handle it carefully and cook it between 160 to 212 degrees farenheit] .
The more reading I do, the more diverse the answers I find.
If anyone has time to look at the brief located at the following link, I’d be interested in their opinion as to whether they find that the article seems to be saying 2 different things. I believe the person/people who wrote it may have been in an awkward position.
fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/H1N1Flu/faq_food.html
)There seems to be varied answers to questions such as how the virus spreads, how long it can survive on non porous surfaces ( a common response is from 2 to 8 hours) etc.
First eating pork was okay, then this week the WHO posted a warning that the virus can survive on frozen pork still okay if you handle it carefully and cook it between 160 to 212 degrees farenheit] .
The more reading I do, the more diverse the answers I find.
If anyone has time to look at the brief located at the following link, I’d be interested in their opinion as to whether they find that the article seems to be saying 2 different things. I believe the person/people who wrote it may have been in an awkward position.
fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/H1N1Flu/faq_food.html
I
Indyann
Guest
I did not see any contradictions in this, however if the WHO is now saying that H1N1 can survive in frozen pork, that does contradict the Q&A article.(* @ jaygo : I meant to include a quote from your post [you and your boys] which was so pertinent, but I kept exceeding the 6000 character limit for a post and had to cut… sorry
There seems to be varied answers to questions such as how the virus spreads, how long it can survive on non porous surfaces ( a common response is from 2 to 8 hours) etc.
First eating pork was okay, then this week the WHO posted a warning that the virus can survive on frozen pork still okay if you handle it carefully and cook it between 160 to 212 degrees farenheit] .
The more reading I do, the more diverse the answers I find.
If anyone has time to look at the brief located at the following link, I’d be interested in their opinion as to whether they find that the article seems to be saying 2 different things. I believe the person/people who wrote it may have been in an awkward position.
fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/H1N1Flu/faq_food.html
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Thanks Indyann… I wanted to make sure I wasn’t reading into it more than what’s there.
The authorities seem quite sure that we can’t get the flu or the H1N1 virus from ingesting food.
Even the WHO, in the same statement said there wasn’t any danger from eating pork:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519335,00.html
And from this site ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090427/health/health_swine_flu_q_amp_a_3
*Q: Is it safe to eat fruits and vegetables from Mexico?
A: Yes. “In terms of influenza viruses and swine flu, it is 100 per cent safe,” says Dr. Andrew Simor, infectious disease specialist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. “The virus is not found in food and it’s not transmitted by ingestion of food.”
Q: Can you get this swine flu from handling or eating pork products?
A: No. “It is perfectly safe to eat pork because that’s not a means of getting swine flu,” Simor says. “Pigs and swine often are infected with influenza virus and yet people ingest pork products all the time. They don’t get sick from it.” *
(In light of to the WHO’s recent statement, Dr. Simor might want to re-visit that part just above concerning handling of pork products).
There are three basic ways viruses may be transmitted - inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact. According to the experts, the flu and the H1N1 virus cannot be transmitted by ingestion, it has to be inhaled into the upper respiratory tract. An example of a virus which could be transmitted by ingestion would be viral gastroenteritis.
From :
pandemicflu.gov/faq/swineflu/sf003.html
How does this new H1N1 virus spread?
Spread of this H1N1 virus is thought to be happening in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing by people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
So we can’t get the H1N1 virus by eating things.
…Kind of makes one consider the possibility that the USCCB have done their homework, while those several others who advocate their own agenda, ie. the topic of this thread, have grabbed hold of the bull (pig ?) by the tail.
K
kneeling
Guest
Hello,
It looks like we’ve talked this one to death, but if you’re not tired, JReducation and some of you others who don’t see a problem with banning Communion on the tongue, you’re welcome to visit kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com
I am totally against what you are saying. I agree with Needs Improvement that ‘Redemptiones Sacramentum’ was promulgated to forbid bishops from doing what a few have just gone and done anyway.
K. C.
It looks like we’ve talked this one to death, but if you’re not tired, JReducation and some of you others who don’t see a problem with banning Communion on the tongue, you’re welcome to visit kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com
I am totally against what you are saying. I agree with Needs Improvement that ‘Redemptiones Sacramentum’ was promulgated to forbid bishops from doing what a few have just gone and done anyway.
K. C.
- Status