Eucharist on the tongue

[bear06]

No way. A Host is comprised of microscopic (however small you define them) and billions of molecular particles.

(Actually the accidents are.)

And how long they remain Our Lord depends on which theologian you ask.

Did you notice the quote I gave from Aquinas?

 

[BobP123]

The kind of fragments you are talking about being dropped will be dropped anyway. You cant stop every molicule.

That’s why we use patens under the chin when we receive on the tongue.

 

[bear06]

That’s why we use patens under the chin when we receive on the tongue.

These work fine for visible particles, not more microscopic ones. Again, to argue molecules is silly. There are more arguments than that to be made for reception on the tongue.

 

[laudamus_te]

The tone can be dropped now thank you. On the tounge and in the hand are equal positions for recieving in. The kind of fragments you are talking about being dropped will be dropped anyway. You cant stop every molicule. The hosts we are using just dont break up into pieces in a manner that it would matter between the hand or in the mouth. There is the problem of dropping the host, but that is a problem no matter what way you do it. The problem we ar having is that people are not recieving with reverance that they should. Probably because they are not made to recieve with reverance. Many don’t care. to many go to church with there wives and children on sunday and go visit there girlfriends at work on monday. IT is a trend of immorality that we need to break. How they treat the host is only an extension of how much they care about there religion in general.

I think you are reading a tone in my words that in all honesty is not there. I’m sorry if the way I express myself on an internet forum comes across in a manner that was not intended. Please give me the benefit of the doubt.

I have to disagree with you on several points. My personal disagreement that they are not equal methods of receiving I won’t touch upon. I don’t believe that the reverance with which people are receiving is the only problem. It is a big problem, to be sure, and you’re right in that the cause of the irreverence can be the result of an indifference to one’s faith. But I know that many people who consider themselves “good Catholics” receive the Host in a very irreverant manner. I half expect there to be a bowl of guacamole nearby for them to dip it into, the way they grab it and crunch and munch as they’re ambling back to their pew.

The kind of fragments I am talking about are many, and it can be almost completely avoided with the use of extreme care and patens and on the tongue. There has been an attempt to diminish the seriousness of the problem by arguing that not every molecule can be confined. We’re not talking about molecules which cannot be seen with the naked eye. I’m talking about fragments which can been seen, and which are many. To casually dismiss this reality is just burying your head in the sand because you don’t want to know about it. Did you read the link I provided earlier in this thread, which had results of an experiment to determine how many visible fragments were dropped? Please do read it if you haven’t, and then let me know if you think those fragments are “big enough to matter.”

 

[laudamus_te]

These work fine for visible particles, not more microscopic ones. Again, to argue molecules is silly. There are more arguments than that to be made for reception on the tongue.

You’re the one who brought up the silliness about molecules.

 

[BobP123]

These work fine for visible particles, not more microscopic ones. Again, to argue molecules is silly.

Maybe my eyes see more? Or maybe I can bring a machine in to magnify the fragments on a projector so that you may see and not think the whole thing is silly?

And while we are on the subect of tiny-ness, do you know how tiny a newly-fertilized baby is? Do we simply say it’s too small to care? I don’t think so. Yet, I’m hearing on this thread that worrying about tiny things is silly.

There are more arguments than that to be made for reception on the tongue.

Must be if the Church once abandoned the practice of communion in the hand.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This dialogue is exactly on the topic of the thread I think. There is no need to consider differing points of view as twisting and we can work out and misinterpretations as we go.

Let me explain something, I am a reverted Catholic who came back to church about 11 yeas ago now after being raised in parochial school. When I did so, I began to devour everything ancient and traditional I could get my hands on. I used to kneel all the time before communion though I could never bring myself to actually kneel at the priest while recieving as I felt embarassed to do that as it seemed likely to draw undue attention on myself if I did. I have only felt comfortable doing that maybe a couple times at different retreats.

I am also an extrodinary minister of holy communion which has brought me stuggle over this topic as well. Since understanding that my hands were not consecrated and I was recieving on the tongue should I then avoid EMHCs so as to only recieve from a priests hands on the tongue when I mayself were tasked with helping distribute communioni? If I was to do this then shouldn’t I then cease being a EMHC which I love to do? Thus the delema. I needed to seek peace. I found peace in doing what I feel most comfortable with. That just happens to be what the majority of the faithful do. I do not do it becuase they are. When I approach communion and fail to kneel my heart and mind are in the same state of reverance as if I did. Am I then only kneeling to edify others? If thats the case is that really my place? I used to think that was maybe the case but do not any longer. Its between the faithful and God. He knows everyones hearts. The form the Mass takes is up to our bishops and I have to hold to whatever they find acceptable I cannot fault.

I think you can be at peace serving as an EMHC. Following in Bear’s wake from the other thread, but with a different emphasis, the Church’s disciplines surrounding her sacraments enjoy a negative infallibility, that is to say, they cannot lead the faithful to impiety. I think EMHCs are overused in the liturgy, personally, but I also know that they provide an important service to the sick or homebound, esp in huge parishes with few priests. If you’re touching the Most Sacred Body, you’re touching the Most Sacred Body, whether it’s in church or a hospital. The Church says that you can do so, under the competant authority.

 

[AJV]

No way. A Host is comprised of microscopic (however small you define them) and billions of molecular particles.

(Actually the accidents are.)

And how long they remain Our Lord depends on which theologian you ask.

Could you please cite some?

 

[Unitas]

I recieve on the tongue because Jesus’ hands are holy and venerable. It therefore follows that for the duration, when acting in persona christi, the priest’s hands, too, are holy and venerable. My hands aren’t.

That’s just my own personal reason.

 

[LilyM]

I recieve on the tongue because Jesus’ hands are holy and venerable. It therefore follows that for the duration, when acting in persona christi, the priest’s hands, too, are holy and venerable. My hands aren’t.

That’s just my own personal reason.

Neither is your tongue, though. Your hands certainly aren’t * less* holy and venerable than your tongue.

So your reason isn’t a reason, it’s a personal preference. Which is fine, you have every right to receive as you prefer, as long as it’s permitted by the church, but don’t say it’s based on reason when it should be acknowledged as a preference, which is what it truly is.

 

[Walking_Home]

I think you can be at peace serving as an EMHC. Following in Bear’s wake from the other thread, but with a different emphasis, the Church’s disciplines surrounding her sacraments enjoy a negative infallibility, that is to say, they cannot lead the faithful to impiety. I think EMHCs are overused in the liturgy, personally, but I also know that they provide an important service to the sick or homebound, esp in huge parishes with few priests. If you’re touching the Most Sacred Body, you’re touching the Most Sacred Body, whether it’s in church or a hospital. The Church says that you can do so, under the competant authority.

---

It is that which has been handed to us from Trent that enjoys negative infallibility–our universal norms—Not the Exceptions to those norms. That is what communion in the hand is—an exception to the universal norm of communion on the tongue. It is an exception which led the Church to issue the following statement. Just by there being a “risk” it is to be withdrawn–because it is not protected by negative infallibility.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

 

[AlexV]

For the sake of the record, there is a lot of strangeness that gets posted around here about “negative infallibility” and how the Church’s disciplines cannot lead the faithful into impiety, ergo, whatever the Church approves is somehow beyond reproach, and if you dare start criticizing any of the Church’s disciplines, well, you might as well call yourself a schismatic now and be done with it.

Infallibility is actually very, very restricted and limited.

It cheapens papal infallibility to throw the word around loosely.

If you want to defend the indult for communion in the hand, go ahead. But let’s leave infallibility out of it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unitas
I recieve on the tongue because Jesus’ hands are holy and venerable. It therefore follows that for the duration, when acting in persona christi, the priest’s hands, too, are holy and venerable. My hands aren’t.

That’s just my own personal reason.

Neither is your tongue, though. Your hands certainly aren’t * less* holy and venerable than your tongue.

So your reason isn’t a reason, it’s a personal preference. Which is fine, you have every right to receive as you prefer, as long as it’s permitted by the church, but don’t say it’s based on reason when it should be acknowledged as a preference, which is what it truly is.

---

If as you say–our tongue is not any more holy than our hands—then by that reasoning—it is not enough that our Lord passes thru one unholy place (our mouth) that we feel the need to do that to Him twice by placing Him in our hands first.

 

[BobP123]

If as you say–our tongue is not any more holy than our hands—then by that reasoning—it is not enough that our Lord passes thru one unholy place (our mouth) that we feel the need to do that to Him twice by placing Him in our hands first.

Yes, and in scientific terms, the less the distance between the ciborium and the digestive track, the better.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m sorry I haven’t been able to get back to post, I’ve had a busy day.

With respect, there is nothing silly or prideful about the argument, at least on the part of those who are defending the concept of obedience to the Holy Father. Also, we didn’t bring up communion in the hand, Walking Home did. I don’t think it should consume the thread, but even though, as he admits, it was a tangent (and we all go off on them), it’s an important one.

This is what I don’t understand. “Traditionalists” sould be the first to advocate obedience to the Holy Father. They should be the first to defend the clear declaration of the Council of Trent that the disciplines of the Church CANNOT lead the faithful to impiety. Yet, as Bear said, they keep dancing around it. Why? It’s traditional.

---

JKirkLVNV—I brought your above post from the other thread–since we have been advice to bring the topic of communion in the hand to this thread.

Now----as Catholics we are called to die for our Lord and the Faith. Since we are called to die for Him–we are also called to do whatever we can to protect Him from profanation. This is what I and others are doing–speaking out on an “exception” --that greatly increases sacrilege. It is not just “traditional”–but 100% Catholic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

It is that which has been handed to us from Trent that enjoys negative infallibility–our universal norms—Not the Exceptions to those norms. That is what communion in the hand is—an exception to the universal norm of communion on the tongue. It is an exception which led the Church to issue the following statement. Just by there being a “risk” it is to be withdrawn–because it is not protected by negative infallibility.

Please provide an authoritative citation that it is A) only that which has been handed down to us from Trent that enjoys negative infallibility and B) that exceptions to those universal norms given by the competent authority are not in themselves disciplines and thus protected.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

Due to the Ultraquist heresy, the Church officially withdrew the chalice from the laity, with exceptions. Now, was the Church’s discipline protected in her altering of what had been an Apostolic practice? You seem to be arguing that only what Trent gave us was protected, what about this Apostolic practice? Was the discipline protected when she allowed the chalices restoration? Trent seems to say that whatever discipline is imposed is incapable of leading the faithful to impiety.

 

[Walking_Home]

Due to the Ultraquist heresy, the Church officially withdrew the chalice from the laity, with exceptions. Now, was the Church’s discipline protected in her altering of what had been an Apostolic practice? You seem to be arguing that only what Trent gave us was protected, what about this Apostolic practice? Was the discipline protected when she allowed the chalices restoration? Trent seems to say that whatever discipline is imposed is incapable of leading the faithful to impiety.

---

The Church took care of that when She declared the Chalice was not mandatory for the laity. I am arguing against the “exception” to the universal norm of communion on the tongue (which still stands). Since reception via the hand IS to be withdrawn just by the “risk” of profanation----that undoes your argument of negative infallibility.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

For the sake of the record, there is a lot of strangeness that gets posted around here about “negative infallibility” and how the Church’s disciplines cannot lead the faithful into impiety, ergo, whatever the Church approves is somehow beyond reproach, and if you dare start criticizing any of the Church’s disciplines, well, you might as well call yourself a schismatic now and be done with it.

Infallibility is actually very, very restricted and limited.

It cheapens papal infallibility to throw the word around loosely.

If you want to defend the indult for communion in the hand, go ahead. But let’s leave infallibility out of it.

With respect, Alex, this could not be further from the truth. NO ONE is saying that we cannot question the prudential judgement of an imposed discipline. Negative infallibility does not imply that a discipline is infallible on the same level as doctrine and dogma. It merely assures that the faithful cannot be lead into impiety by that discipline. Impiety can be concurrent with ANY discipline, but I would grant Walking Home the caveat that it MAY be more prevalent with communion in the hand. That does NOT, however, mean that the discipline itself is impious.

Going back to the chalice: if pictures tell the truth, then a particular west coast metropolitan archbishop allows for the reception of the Most Precious Blood by the huge numbers of the laity gathered for Mass in stadiums. Even though the giving of both of the Sacred Species was an Apostolic practice, I would question the prudential judgment that allowed it to take place in such a setting. That doesn’t mean that I think the practice is ontollogically flawed or impious.

No one has called anyone schismatic and it isn’t a matter of defending communion in the hand per se as it is a matter of defending the Church’s authority. If you have quibble with negative infallibility, then you have a quibble with a traditional Church teaching.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

The Church took care of that when She declared the Chalice was not mandatory for the laity. I am arguing against the “exception” to the universal norm of communion on the tongue (which still stands). Since reception via the hand IS to be withdrawn just by the “risk” of profanation----that undoes your argument of negative infallibility.

Not so, unless you can cite an authoritative source! The exception has to be regarded as itself a part of the discipline, as does the exception regarding the risk of profanation. Both are part of the discipline and thus equally protected.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

JKirkLVNV—I brought your above post from the other thread–since we have been advice to bring the topic of communion in the hand to this thread.

Now----as Catholics we are called to die for our Lord and the Faith. Since we are called to die for Him–we are also called to do whatever we can to protect Him from profanation. This is what I and others are doing–speaking out on an “exception” --that greatly increases sacrilege. It is not just “traditional”–but 100% Catholic.

Then you have to explain away Trent’s declaration.