Eucharist on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
Again—the universal norms supercede indult norms. The universal norms are still in force.
Click to expand...
If they superceded the indult norms then why is the indult much more common in practice and the indult allowed in the first place?

Realistically they are equal or the laity wouldn’t have the discretion to choose.

In the strictest sense, what your saying is yes but in the practical practice of what the faithful are doing then no.

The fact is that communion on the hand is the most common way of reception by the faithful even in Rome. Do you know why that is?
 
Who knows?

Well let’s see. When I was growing up in a Catholic parish, Catholic school, the nuns…and the priests…told me that it wasn’t allowed to receive on the tongue.

They lied.

Now perhaps my education was unique? I doubt it.

If you tell people “we used to do X, now we do Y”…given that the VAST majority of people don’t really care and just do whatever they’re told, believing whatever they’re told…it’s not surprising the indult becomes more common than the norm.

But, again, as stated above…numbers are meaningless. Doesn’t matter if a billion receive in the hand, and 1 on the tongue. Reception on the tongue is the norm for the Roman Rite.
 
One must realize that, while Communion on the Hand is approved by the law of the Church, one must think is this a good way to receive Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist. Remember, if you receive on your hand, particles of the Sacred Host are on your hand, and can get on your clothing or even the floor. Just because something is approved doesn’t mean you should do it. In the Traditional Latin Mass, after the priest touches the Sacred Host with his thumb and index finger, he doesn’t separate those fingers until he has washed them. That just shows how important it is to receive on the tongue.
 
AlexV said:
“KatholikosMercy”: doesn’t matter how many people follow the universal norm, and how many follow the indult.

Doesn’t change reality. The normative reception of Communion in the Roman Rite is on the tongue. Indults exist for reception in the hand. Doesn’t change the norm.
Click to expand...
Thats understood. But the “reality” is the majority of the church takes the Indult without even realizing its an indult.

So, it DOES matter what most of the people are doing and just as importantly what they WANT to do. Else we wouldn’t have an indult in the first place. You see the opinion of the majority is the opinion of the church.

I find it interesting that those who advocate against this indult also advocate against the norm of recieving while standing.

#160:2: The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
If they superceded the indult norms then why is the indult much more common in practice and the indult allowed in the first place?

In the strictest sense of what your saying is yes but in the practicale practice of what the faithful are doing then no.

The fact is that communion on the hand is the most common way of reception by the faithful even in Rome. Do you know why that is?
Click to expand...
It is common because people were hoodwinked from the start. It was an abused that gained life and grew–because of deception. Once congregations became acustomed to it—they were then used as pawns to get from Rome what the bishops wanted–the indult for communion in the hand. It is ongoing because communion in the hand is being overly emphasized over the universal norm of communion on the tongue.
 
Again, doesn’t change the universal norm, no matter how many follow an indult.

In any case, where is your academically sound proof that the majority of Roman Rite Catholics follow the indult and not the norm?

As for the other issues you raise, thanks for making assumptions. This thread is about reception on the tongue. If you want to start another thread on another topic, go ahead.
 
Walking_Home said:
It is common because people were hoodwinked from the start. It was an abused that gained life and grew–because of deception. Once congregations became acustomed to it—they were then used as pawns to get from Rome what the bishops wanted–the indult for communion in the hand. It is ongoing because communion in the hand is being overly emphasized over the universal norm of communion on the tongue.
Click to expand...
If people were hoodwinked as you say then why doesn’t the Magisterium of the church step in and correct it?

Instead the Pope himself adminsters communion in the hand in St Peters basillica.

Are you saying our beloved Pontiff is hoodwinked? Hardly.
 
Why does the pope allow bishops to remain in power who blatantly disregard his clear rubrical instructions?

Are you claiming that if the pope does something, it MUST be okay?

That’s unCatholic.

Again, I was told as a child I was not allowed to receive on the tongue. That was a lie. I was lied to. So were many others.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
If people were hoodwinked as you say then why doesn’t the Magisterium of the church step in and correct it?
Instead the Pope himself adminsters communion in the hand in St Peters basillica.

Are you saying our beloved Pontiff is hoodwinked? Hardly.
Click to expand...
Up to this point–Rome hasn’t. But this still does not deny–how communion in the hand came to be and gain ground. And it does not deny—that the universal norms are communion on the tongue --kneeling.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
If people were hoodwinked as you say then why doesn’t the Magisterium of the church step in and correct it?

Instead the Pope himself adminsters communion in the hand in St Peters basillica.

Are you saying our beloved Pontiff is hoodwinked? Hardly.
Click to expand...
It is most definitely un-Catholic to think that everything that the Holy Father does in correct. He has made mistakes, he is human. He is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, not whether receiving in the hand is good or not. I think that when the Holy See granted the indult to receive in the hand, they showed a definite lack of judgment. I believe that their granting of that indult has caused some “Catholics” to not believe in the real presence of the Our Lord in the Eucharist. If we want to help this crisis of unbelieve, we first must require all Catholics to receive Communion on the tongue and kneeling.
 
AlexV said:
Again, doesn’t change the universal norm, no matter how many follow an indult.

In any case, where is your academically sound proof that the majority of Roman Rite Catholics follow the indult and not the norm?

As for the other issues you raise, thanks for making assumptions. This thread is about reception on the tongue. If you want to start another thread on another topic, go ahead.
Click to expand...
If you go to Mass you can count heads if you like. As an Extrordinary Minister of Holy communion its at least about a ratio of 20:1 as my best guess estimate of those who recieve in the hand versus those on tongue. Its obvious and all the proof I need.

My assumptions are based on experieince and not intellectualism or modernism. I can read what the thread is about thank you. I do not wish to start another thread and prefer to pursue the presumptious pride I see on this one.

Pax and Gods speed my brother in Christ.
 
Are you accusing me of modernism?

As for “intellectualism”, if that means academic rigor, guilty as charged.

As for “presumptuous pride”, that’s quite a charge for someone merely stating facts.

So you count heads at Mass (time could be better spent, I’d argue, but I digress).

So from counting heads, you opine about universal practices?

Yeah, that’s definitely problematic. Not to mention “presumptuous”.
 
TantumErgo90 said:
One must realize that, while Communion on the Hand is approved by the law of the Church, one must think is this a good way to receive Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist. Remember, if you receive on your hand, particles of the Sacred Host are on your hand, and can get on your clothing or even the floor. Just because something is approved doesn’t mean you should do it. In the Traditional Latin Mass, after the priest touches the Sacred Host with his thumb and index finger, he doesn’t separate those fingers until he has washed them. That just shows how important it is to receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
i would think the mentality is that the particles that may be unseen on the hand are not significant enough to cause an uproar. if the intentions of the priest and communicant are honest, then God will not condemn them if an unseen particle were to fall and be stepped on. obviously if the person still sees a considerable crumb in the hand, they should eat it.

so i trust the Magisterium has made a reasonable decision here. they have drawn the line and allowed it. i think they have made it clear that using an air filter to retrieve any lost molecules in the air would be scrupulous, while in the hand is a reasonable compromise. will there still be some people who know every model of HEPA filter and have an Ionic Breeze in every room who gasp at the thought of the sacred particles floating about in the air? probably, but the call has been made for the whole of the community.

to trust in God is to trust the Magisterium He appointed. in doing so i doubt He will condemn you if they do go back to an earlier tradition. be at peace and share in His joy!
 
Rykell said:
If that was the case, then the long-standing custom of the NOM would prevail, and the Pope would not be able to issue the long-awaited Motu Proprio. Some selectively pick and choose which statements of the Popes are valid for them to observe, and which are not.

However, in the example of the permissions needed for some saints to receive the Eucharist more frequently, if they were denied because of the current discipline being in place, they submitted and did NOT rebel, saying to themselves, “This was the custom of the ancient church, therefore I am permitted to disobey my superiors.”

It did not happen, and we need to follow their example, obeying those which are set forth by the Holy See, until such time as they are changed. And I agree, Dave, that one can raise questions about any particular discipline, which is exactly what some saints did. The end result, whichever way our questioning turns out, is obedience.
Click to expand...
👍

trust and obey. it makes life easier and happier.
 
Trusting in liars is part of what has caused so much of the trouble in the liturgy.
 
Saint Thomas Aquinas said
“Out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the hands of the Priest.”
Click to expand...
This makes sense. It was sacreligious to receive in the hand and I personally believe that it is now. Mother Theresa, I believe said it saddened her to see people receive in the hand.
 
And actually, the complete story of our parish and Communion on the hand is this: in 1983 a new pastor was assigned. Within a month of arrival he removed the altar rail. He ascribed this to “the spirit of Vatican II”. The people had been kneeling for Communion; he changed it in 1 month. Now it was standing. My Communion class the next year was told we had to receive in the hands, under both forms. My parents…and some others…protested. The pastor, I later discovered, told my parents they suffered “psychological problems” and needed to “move forward with the Church”. He also made the observation that my mother “worked…which isn’t very traditional…while insisting on receiving on the tongue”. He said he would “allow them to receive the old way”…but not me, or my sister. He accused them of being “divisive” (note all the familiar words, I later learned, typically used in these arguments).

Lastly, when my parents left the parish and went to the one down the road…he called the pastor there and told him not to let us receive sacraments there, since it wasn’t our canonical parish. Luckily, as I later learned, the pastor there told him to buzz off.
 
AlexV said:
On the day a pope orders jumping jacks at the Consecration, I guess some of us will do them, and others not.
Click to expand...
And no doubt some basher(s) will go to work immediately and find someone somewhere that jumped back in 400AD and thus it “proves” that the non-jumpers are disobedient or schismatic. Very :rolleyes:
 
Walking_Home said:
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. **You have not provided any documentation that the Church differentiates between a norm or an indult. Both are permitted or imposed or promulgated (a better word) disciplines of the Church. **

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.

**Again, you need to cite something. You’ve provided nothing from the Church that supports your assertion. **

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.
Click to expand...
So bascially what your saying is that an Apostolic practice, restored by the Church for whatever reason, can be letitimately called impious? Please note, I’m not saying it could not or should not be changed. All I’m saying is that it cannot be called impious of itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top