Eucharist on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, Communion on the tongue now enjoys the status of a venerable custom, and no, a future pope couldn’t suddenly ban it, any more than a future pope could declare that jumping jacks were the appropriate sign of reverence for the Consecration.

And before someone attacks my example, a certain self-proclaimed web apologist who lectures his audience quite a bit about obedience makes the frequent statement that if the pope ordered “jumping jacks at the Consecration”, he would perform them out of obedience.

That’s sick…and unCatholic.

Again, I urge living in the world of practicality, not the world of ontological reflection on actions “in se” and what actions “in and of themselves” can and cannot do.
 
AlexV said:
If the priest gives someone Communion in the hand, and they go and desecrate the host by shoving it in a hymnal, then indeed giving them the host in the hand led them into impiety. If it were given on the tongue, and the person spit it out on the floor and stepped on it, then giving it to them on tongue ALSO led them into impiety.

So let’s stop it with the Trent negative infallibility. It doesn’t mean that various things the Church allows cannot ever lead us into impiety. Church disciplines aren’t magical.
Click to expand...
No, Church disciplines aren’t magical. There’s no such thing as magic. Church disicplines are PROTECTED.

I don’t feel able “to stop it with the Trent negative infallibility,” since Trent felt it was important enough to attach an anathema to the idea that any of the disciplines of the Church could lead to impiety. You keep reminding us that infallibility is narrow. I agree, but there is still this constitution of Trent to contend with or explain away.

Perhaps if we could refrain from calling the disciplines the Church allows or imposes impieties, then this wouldn’t crop up. An important disctinction in the examples you give is this: the disciplines of themselves are not the cause of the impiety, the person receiving is the cause of the impiety.
 
AlexV said:
Actually, Communion on the tongue now enjoys the status of a venerable custom, and no, a future pope couldn’t suddenly ban it, any more than a future pope could declare that jumping jacks were the appropriate sign of reverence for the Consecration.
If you’re going to cite venerable custom, then I’m afraid you can get much more “venerable” than the Apostles et al. If the Church can dispense with customs that they practiced for what she regards as prudential reasons, then she patentely can do so with disciplines that aren’t as old. And no, I agree, no pope would ban it. It was an example.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The apostles were bishops at the Last Supper.

As for what they did with the Eucharist, we have no historical evidence of Eucharistic etiquette in the first century A.D.
 
AlexV said:
The apostles were bishops at the Last Supper.

As for what they did with the Eucharist, we have no historical evidence of Eucharistic etiquette in the first century A.D.
Click to expand...
I’ve read very little that suggested that that the early Church rec. other than in the hand and that they rec. both Sacred Species. If the Church can alter such a venerable tradition (which she patently can do), then she can alter latter ones (for example, reception solely on the tongue could be replaced with reception in the hand as the norm. It ain’t gonna happen, no, but it COULD, because the Church has the authority).
 
Absence of evidence to the contrary doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

The fact is…despite what some liturgists would have us believe…we DON’T know what the tradition was for Communion distribution in apostolic times. There is scant evidence for Communion distribution practice (hand, tongue) until comparatively late in the patristic period, and even there, it doesn’t pass the historical-critical test for solid evidence of Roman practice.

We know more about what was happening on some specific days in the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. than we know about what Christians were doing on Sunday.

This thread isn’t about Communion under both species.
 
AlexV said:
Absence of evidence to the contrary doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

The fact is…despite what some liturgists would have us believe…we DON’T know what the tradition was for Communion distribution in apostolic times. There is scant evidence for Communion distribution practice (hand, tongue) until comparatively late in the patristic period, and even there, it doesn’t pass the historical-critical test for solid evidence of Roman practice.

We know more about what was happening on some specific days in the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. than we know about what Christians were doing on Sunday.

This thread isn’t about Communion under both species.
Click to expand...
It’s not about jumping jacks, either! 🙂

It’s is, however, about communion in the hand, which touches on the Church’s authority to order the discipline of her sacraments and whether or not we can call a discipline imposed or allowed by the Church an impiety.
 
You keep your ontological garden where everything comes down to the black & white of what the Church allegedly can and cannot do.

The rest of us will live in the real liturgical world, where a strong case can be made for correlation between Communion the “old way” and the “new way” and Eucharistic reverence, belief in the Real Presence, who knows what else.
 
AlexV said:
You keep your ontological garden where everything comes down to the black & white of what the Church allegedly can and cannot do.

The rest of us will live in the real liturgical world, where a strong case can be made for correlation between Communion the “old way” and the “new way” and Eucharistic reverence, belief in the Real Presence, who knows what else.
Click to expand...
With respect, Alex, I’m not entirely sure either of us speak for the “rest of us,” when it comes to the folks who post to these forums. I think quite a few are probably concerned with the state of the Mass in this country and about the reverence or lack thereof with which Holy Communion is received. We differ in that some are not willing (in light of Trent) to call a discipline allowed or imposed by the Church an impiety (I’m sure we’d all agree that a lack of good, solid Eucharistic catechesis is at the root of the problem). If you want to state that communion on the tongue looks objectively more reverent, then I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately, I then have to contend with the likes of St. John Chrysostom et al, the early Church, etc., and I’m not willing to say that they were less reverent than we are who receive on the tongue. Because of this, I’m not willing to attempt to force the consciences of those who have availed themselves of a choice the Church gives them and a choice which must be protected as Trent said it was. So you see, it clearly (!) isn’t black and white for me. It’s a nuanced struggle.
 
how can anyone not know what to do with your mouth opened and tongue out? maybe your mouth isn’t wide enough and your tongue not out far enough for them to immediately recognize it?

ya, be careful about your arms and hands, because they might think you’re asking for a blessing.
Caesar said:
I was told off for trying to recieve on the tongue.
Click to expand...
unbelievable.

imo, if the bishop or priest specifcally asks for the hand/tongue or to kneel/stand, then you should respect his request at his parish. offer it up, since you and God knows your heart. after you leave his parish, continue with your normal reverence.
 
Can we take this piece by piece? It would seem that we’re trying to throw too many arguments in at once.

I’d like to know if who thinks that there is a negative infallibility attached to disciplines. I’m pretty sure that I can count me, Dave and Kirk. Anyone else?
 
Again, my arument was against fragments we cannot see containing Our Lord. This is not Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Since each one’s eyes are different, what is the Catholic teaching here exactly? And what’s wrong with having knowledge of molecular physics? Or denial of same, for that matter? Does the Church teach it’s silly to discuss the minute-ness of something that represents the power and majesty of our Creator? Just because it’s small should not mean we trivialize it lest we really don’t care about its value. One cannot see a newly-fertilized egg, yet it’s still a human being, isn’t it?
If you can’t see it, Our Lord is no longer there.
Click to expand...
What if I bring in a machine that will enable you to see it?
Regardless of how one receives, a paton should be used to catch any visible particles.
Click to expand...
Patens are used to catch as many particles as possible; they are not sifters. The smaller the area under which the Host is exposed the better. All particles, stationary and moving, are visible to some extent.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The above isn’t so, Walking Home. WHATEVER the discipline of the Church is is the discipline that is protected. By your reasoning, the Apostles and the early Fathers, in practicing communion in the hand, did not know better than the latter Church, who repressed it. The latter Church was more on the ball than those that walked with Christ or were taught by His apostles? With respect, that’s the slippery slope to modernism. What is eternal is not the discipline, but the authority to impose the discipline and the fact that the imposed discipline cannot lead the faithful to impiety.

I don’t argue that there may be grounds for withdrawing it. Some pope in the future may well decide to withdraw the indult. Some pope in the future may well decide to make it the universal norm. The point is that whatever discipline is imposed is protected. It isn’t infallible in that it cannot be changed, it’s infallible in that at the least it cannot be called impious. It cannot of itself lead to impiety. That the important distinction, because it touches on the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
The problem with your argument is that you fail to differentiate between the Church’s norms and the exceptions her universal norms. Trent protected the Church’s universal norms—not what falls outside those norms—the exceptions.

These exceptions are not protected because —withdrawl–is already built in—and RS-2004 proves that. Communion in the hand at the risk of profanation can be withdrawn on the local level —because it does not have the protection of the universal norms.

Also note that RS-2004 also ties profanation to communion in the hand. That along with our late Pope statements–shows the liability incurred with communion in the hand.
 
BobP123 said:
Since each one’s eyes are different, what is the Catholic teaching here exactly? And what’s wrong with having knowledge of molecular physics? Or denial of same, for that matter? Does the Church teach it’s silly to discuss the minute-ness of something that represents the power and majesty of our Creator? Just because it’s small should not mean we trivialize it lest we really don’t care about its value. One cannot see a newly-fertilized egg, yet it’s still a human being, isn’t it?

.
Click to expand...
You know BobP123—you have brought up something here. Outright disposing of a newly-fertilized egg is disposing of a human life. This puts a different perspective to the particles from the Host. These too—carry life—but in this instance—God’s life.
 
I think we can discern the validity of negative infallibility from Acts 15, where the apostles issued a letter, after deliberating on the discipline of circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law for the Gentiles.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The former disciplines were nullified and the Gentiles were under no further requirement to observe these. I have a feeling the pharisees were not too happy about that, but nevertheless, the decision was made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and honored by the new converts. Maybe those who desired it could practice the former laws as a personal devotion, but they were absolved of all obligation to do so.

It appears to me that some are in the same position of the pharisees in that chapter, requiring the church to abide by their perceptions of how disciplines should be carried out. As in those days, it caused a lot of heated and needless controversy before the matter was finally decided, and since we presently have a statement from the Magisterium, that should be the end of the wrangling. Yes?
 
And the cardinal archbishop of a rather prominent archdiocese once indicated, in writing, that flagons could be used to distribute the “consecrated wine” (sic) in his archdiocese.

I guess flagons enjoy “negative infallibility” in his territory.

I’m increasingly reminded of the 19th century Ultramontanist who said he prayed that the Pope might write a letter every morning telling him what to think and do.

Some would extend that to their ordinary, as well.
 
I located an ancient document from St. Basil that showed the early church did receive communion in the hand, at least in the fourth century.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xciv.html

And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

This sentence was interesting, where the faithful were encouraged to partake on a daily basis. From books I’ve read, the church later withdrew this privilege and restricted the frequency. Some saints had to obtain extraordinary permission to frequent the sacrament. We see the change in discipline throughout the years, from often - to seldom - to twice daily at this time.

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top