Five myths about worship in the early church

[CompSciGuy]

Do you think Christ placed the ‘bread’ on the tongues of the Apostles while they were kneeling, or was it more of a meal setting?

And for those who would argue that this is the “heresy” of “antiquarianism” or whatever you call it, perhaps you should consider that you might be following a “heresy” of sticklerism.

What is with the objection of receiving under both species? Have you read the scriptures? Jesus offered up bread and wine, not just bread. In Paul’s description of communion in 1 Corinthians both species are used. Why is this considered a problem?

 

[catholictiger]

Please tell us how you know if a person is receiving the host reverently or not?

Cardinal Ratzinger

we don’t know that’s not my point,

and about the popes qoute, the host will go on the tongue eventually. Plus its the heart that does the sinning not the hand not the toungue.

you are quoting pre pope rat zinger I know he doesn’t change much but you must notice the current pope, requires that all people who receive the Eucharist from him, Kneel and receive it on the tongue. You are making contradicting posts by quoting this becuase Pope Benedict requires people to receive on the tongue. no exceptions.

 

[catholictiger]

For te communion please quote the contemporary documents which proove that the early Church practiced the communion on tongue. For further misunderstanding also please define where the early church starts and ends

unfortnatly I can’t, I’m using the article as my source, but one thing for sure is that the way we do communion in the hand is not the way the early church did it.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider describes that when a person in the early church receives the Eucharist on the hand they couldn’t touch it with their fingers, and their hand was purified after receiving the host.

Quote please. Simple telling that it was 325 is not enough. Some contemporary reference is needed

I can’t I don’t think I could go through hundreds of Church documents to find this. The people who wrote the article did, unfortunately they didn’t quote.

As for the church changing in 313 or not, please explain why the celibacy was introduced, why killing/banishing heretics or so called heretics started only on that time. Simply claim that the church did not made immediate turnover, and did not became instantly clerical church is is insufficient. Neither can you claim, that the Church before was clerical oriented. Even in the 6th century the Benedictine monks were confortable w/o clergy or clerical leadership as the contemporary regula testifies.

your still not responding to the cliam that the article brought up. Go back and read it.

The truth is that although the Church did indeed change — in some ways for the better and some for the worse — there was far more continuity than rupture. The Church before Constantine already had firm distinctions between clergy and laity, and she already recognized the importance of beautiful art, architecture, symbolism, and solemnity. After all, the Last Supper took place during the Passover, which was itself highly ritualized, and every Mass is a consummation of the ornate liturgies of synagogue and Temple. Indeed, a Eucharistic liturgy in the second or third century was longer, more hierarchical, and more symbolically brocaded than a Sunday Mass today. And since pews are a Protestant invention to accommodate long sermons, you either stood or knelt on the floor the entire time.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

we don’t know that’s not my point,

and about the popes qoute, the host will go on the tongue eventually. Plus its the heart that does the sinning not the hand not the toungue.

you are quoting pre pope rat zinger I know he doesn’t change much but you must notice the current pope, requires that all people who receive the Eucharist from him, Kneel and receive it on the tongue. You are making contradicting posts by quoting this becuase Pope Benedict requires people to receive on the tongue. no exceptions.

So, if we don’t know why are you arguing there is ‘less reverence’ receiving in the hand?

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger state it will go on the tongue eventually? I actually read that he said it was wrong to argue about it, and that both forms were acceptable, with a reminder that we sin more with out tongue than the hand.

There is no contradiction from me. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the quote provided, the link takes you to the book it was written in. Did you not reject someone’s explanation that if the Pope gives communion in the hand, there is a great risk someone will keep it as a ‘keepsake’?

You are offering up ‘evidence’ without any documentation, or other sources, which appears to be only your opinion. Please provide some documentation for the things you assert.

 

[Sarika]

Sarika;8009665:

No proof that the Holy Mother and the other women were not recipient, unless you can uote some new source. Also St Paul’s also diner-like description was definitely not just for priests.

What do you mean by “diner-like”?

 

[stephraim]

Quote please. Simple telling that it was 325 is not enough. Some contemporary reference is needed.

Historically, the earliest mention of the subdiaconate seems to be found in the letter of Pope Cornelius (A.D. 255) to Fabius of Antioch, in which he states that, there are among the Roman clergy forty-six priests, seven deacons, and seven subdeacons (he also goes on to give the number of acolytes, lectors, ostiaries, exorcists, etc.). There is nothing to indicate, however, that the subdiaconate is not older than the third century. That there were subdeacons in the African Church in the same century is evident from the letters of St. Cyprian (e.g. Epistle 8). The fourth Council of Carthage also mentions them in 398. The Synod of Elvira, (305) in Spain does the same (c. 30). Their existence in the Oriental Church is testified to by St. Athanasius in 330 (ep. 2) and by the Council of Laodicea (can. 21) in 361.

 

[catholictiger]

So, if we don’t know why are you arguing there is ‘less reverence’ receiving in the hand?

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger state it will go on the tongue eventually? I actually read that he said it was wrong to argue about it, and that both forms were acceptable, with a reminder that we sin more with out tongue than the hand.

There is no contradiction from me. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the quote provided, the link takes you to the book it was written in. Did you not reject someone’s explanation that if the Pope gives communion in the hand, there is a great risk someone will keep it as a ‘keepsake’?

You are offering up ‘evidence’ without any documentation, or other sources, which appears to be only your opinion. Please provide some documentation for the things you assert.

Msgr. Marini: I really think so. In this regard it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an indult from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops conferences which requested it. The method adopted by Benedict XVI tends to underscore the force of the norm valid for the whole Church. In addition, one could perhaps also note a preference for using this method of distribution which, without taking anything from the other, better sheds light on the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it helps the the devotion of the faithful, introduces them more easily to a sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our time, speaking pastorally, it is urgent to highlight and recover.

and the reason your posts are contradictory is becuase of the actions of the pope. The pope requires the faithful who receive from him to kneel and receive on the tongue.

I can’t seem to find something that says he does it every mass but this is for sure he did this in 2008 on the feast of corpus christi.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/corpus-christi-mass-benedict-xvi-gives-communion-only-on-the-tongue-to-people-kneeling/

if the pope doesn’t put an importance on communion on the tongue or even as your post kinda suggest, think the hand is better then the tongue then why does he require people to receive kneeling on the tongue.

I hope you realize that the universal norm of the Catholic Church is receiving the Host on the Tongue, the exception is on the hand.

about the it eventually goes on the tongue its common since. For the Host to be consumed it must touch the tongue.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

and the reason your posts are contradictory is becuase of the actions of the pope. The pope requires the faithful who receive from him to kneel and receive on the tongue.

I can’t seem to find something that says he does it every mass but this is for sure he did this in 2008 on the feast of corpus christi.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/corpus-christi-mass-benedict-xvi-gives-communion-only-on-the-tongue-to-people-kneeling/

if the pope doesn’t put an importance on communion on the tongue or even as your post kinda suggest, think the hand is better then the tongue then why does he require people to receive kneeling on the tongue.

I hope you realize that the universal norm of the Catholic Church is receiving the Host on the Tongue, the exception is on the hand.

about the it eventually goes on the tongue its common since. For the Host to be consumed it must touch the tongue.

If there’s a contradiction, as you note, it is on the Pope’s part. He wrote one thing and is doing something else. We are not privy to why. I am merely providing documentation, from his hand. Again, didn’t you reject an explanation of the Pope not risking people keeping the host as a ‘keepsake’ because he gave it? Even this, as all points of view on the discussion, is speculation at best. Only the Holy Father can define any changes, or lack of changes precisely. Also note, it was not my post that suggested anything. I merely posted a quote from a book written by the Pope. The suggestion you refer to, is his.

Let’s not be mistaken. If the Pope declared all communion was to be received on the tongue I, and I imagine all Catholics, would comply. The fact is, that has not happened. I have provided writings from the Holy Father, prior to him filling the Papacy.

In the meantime, I don’t plan on telling others they are wrong, based on my own opinion. Whether it’s an indult, or not, both forms are acceptable, and for me personally I cannot place myself in a position of judging other people’s reception of the host.

You continue to rely on an article that does not offer any supporting documentation of what it states. I even said that we cannot completely accept that there were some Christian communities that received in the hand as written in the article, because it offered no supporting documentation of that statement.

I have also tried to give food for thought on how I believe it to be judging another, and a a lack of focus on the Mass, when we view others as receiving inappropriately. Shouldn’t our own focus be on Him, and sharing in His sacrifice for us, with concern on our own hearts during this time?

 

[FAB]

interesting article I stumbled upon.

I’m just going to post the 5myths go to the article itself to read everything else.

1. Mass facing the people.
2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds.
3. The vernacular.
4. Lay ministry.
5. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church

crisismagazine.com/2011/five-myths-about-worship-in-the-early-church

interesting read IMO.

There is evidence in the writings of the early Church fathers that each of these practices were common. Even thought the the good professor is a theologian, I found his reasonng shallow.

 

[catholictiger]

If there’s a contradiction, as you note, it is on the Pope’s part. He wrote one thing and is doing something else. We are not privy to why. I am merely providing documentation, from his hand. Again, didn’t you reject an explanation of the Pope not risking people keeping the host as a ‘keepsake’ because he gave it? Even this, as all points of view on the discussion, is speculation at best. Only the Holy Father can define any changes, or lack of changes precisely.

hmmmm, I doubt that, I think you are misreading the pope’s words. I really don’t think the pope would say that then change his ways and require people to recieve it on the tongue when receiving from him.

Let’s not be mistaken. If the Pope declared all communion was to be received on the tongue I, and I imagine all Catholics, would comply. The fact is, that has not happened. I have provided writings from the Holy Father, prior to him filling the Papacy.

answer this, do you believe the preferred method for receiving the Eucharist is on the tongue.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

In the meantime, I don’t plan on telling others they are wrong, based on my own opinion. Whether it’s an indult, or not, both forms are acceptable, and for me personally I cannot place myself in a position of judging other people’s reception of the host.

I don’t either I’m trying to show the people on this board that receiving on the tongue first is the norm of the universal church, and the most reverent way to receive Christ.

You continue to rely on an article that does not offer any supporting documentation of what it states. I even said that we cannot completely accept that there were some Christian communities that received in the hand as written in the article, because it offered no supporting documentation of that statement.

I rely on more then just this article, if you have read all my post you would have seen this.

I have also tried to give food for thought on how I believe it to be judging another, and a a lack of focus on the Mass, when we view others as receiving inappropriately. Shouldn’t our own focus be on Him, and sharing in His sacrifice for us, with concern on our own hearts during this time?

yes our focus should be on Christ, but if you see someone receiving Christ in such a way that it is profaning Christ, would you just sit back and say nothing.

While I don’t see in the hand this way, I think on the tongue is more reverent, for many reasons. I’m just trying to show that.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

Meh. The article refutes some myths, encourages others:

Pope Benedict stated this was because people were saving Hosts distributed by him as souvenirs, a profoundly disrespectful practice that he in no way wanted to encourage. He continues to affirm the licitness of communion in the hand.

That is one reason why the Pope should re-institute the practice of the distribution of the Agnus Dei.

 

[catholictiger]

from the pope

. Here we find the meaning of the third constitutive element of Corpus Christi: kneeling in adoration before the Lord. Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, who out of love made himself bread broken, is the most effective and radical remedy against the idolatry of the past and of the present. Kneeling before the Eucharist is a profession of freedom: those who bow to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate themselves before any earthly authority, however powerful. We Christians kneel only before God or before the Most Blessed Sacrament because we know and believe that the one true God is present in it, the God who created the world and so loved it that he gave his Only Begotten Son

homily on corpus Christi may 22nd 2008

at this mass he required all men and women who would receive Christ from the pope would kneel and receive on the tongue.

While this quote can be tied to multiple uses I would imagine the same would go to kneeling before Christ in the Eucharist before receiving Christ.

I’m pretty sure the pope thinks that kneeling and receiving on the tongue is the most reverent manner to receive Christ.

the cardinal which I posted a video of who speaks for the pope states that the norms are kneeling and on the tongue. on the hand an standing is the exception.

 

[Transformer]

I never said that

You said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if on the hand is a new style of receiving the Eucharist.” It is not a new style of receiving the Eucharist.

yeah it can’t take up to 30 to 40 minuets but a person should receive in the most reverent way possible. So even if they receive in the hand they should do it in a reverent, way. receiving on the tongue actually only takes a couple more seconds then in the hand barley at all. I didn’t live before vat 2 but most churches did one or two distributors of the Eucharist, did that go on forever and ever and ever, I don’t think it would. I’m fine with the way the mass is right now, I don’t think we should go back to the Latin mass, but we should push to have people be more reverent when they receive Christ.

i never said we should go back to communion rails, you can kneel without the communion rails. The way some parishes do communion is not very reverent in some instances. Its the people not the parish, but a priest in a parish who don’t have reverence for the Eucharist should deal with it in some way.

Agreed.

when walking past a tabernacle why do you genuflect, or why do you bow. Simple you are humbling yourself in-front of Christ. by kneeling you are humbing yourself infront of Christ, you don’t do that when standing.

We humble ourselves before the Eucharist via kneeling in our seats before and after reception, and by bowing immediately before reception. Standing has its own wonderful symbolic connotations. There is nothing inferior about reception while standing, and so the Church allows it.

on the toungue you are causing a pause, you have to wait to be feed, something is going to happen in that persons heart.

Receiving on the hand or on the tongue, the Communicant can pause for as long as she needs to.

also receiving on the tongue removes the chance for someone to treat the host in an irreverent manner.

But traditionalists frequently insinuate (or outright state) that reception in the hand is necessarily worse, even when done reverently.

yes but still receiving on the tongue is more reverent then on the hand.

I do not see any reason why this is necessarily the case.

communion on the tongue (standing or kneeling) is the Universal Norm, I would imagine the Catholic Church makes it the norm becuase its the more reverent form to receive Christ.

Reception on the tongue is the norm in the Latin Rite (I do not feel comfortable speaking for any of the Eastern Rites) for historical reasons. That does not imply that it is implicitly superior.

I notice that communion on the hand is acceptable.

This is all I want to establish, really. I’m glad Communion on the tongue is the universal norm in our Rite, and I prefer it myself. But there is nothing wrong with Communion in the hand, it was practiced from the earliest days of Christianity, and I simply do not understand why it is such a colossal issue with so many traditionalists.

and the article didn’t argue against it, it argued against the idea that communion in the hand in the early church was the NORM.

As far as I can tell, there really wasn’t a consistent norm throughout the Latin Church in the first few centuries; neither reception in the hand nor on the tongue can claim to be the norm from that period.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

hmmmm, I doubt that, I think you are misreading the pope’s words. I really don’t think the pope would say that then change his ways and require people to recieve it on the tongue when receiving from him.

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

I have bolded part of what the Pope said. Please show me where I am ‘misreading’ his words.

You also failed to address the fact that you reject any other reasons why the Pope gives communion a specific way. As per the example given, so that people don’t attempt to keep the host as a ‘keepsake’ from the Pope. Like or not, the Pope retains more than a celebrity status among Catholics and others.

answer this, do you believe the preferred method for receiving the Eucharist is on the tongue.

I have said that receiving in the hand is an indult. I’ve also stated that either way is acceptable to the authoritative of the Church.

I don’t either I’m trying to show the people on this board that receiving on the tongue first is the norm of the universal church, and the most reverent way to receive Christ.

Here is the contradiction as I see it. You are trying to show what is the ‘norm’ AND the MOST reverent. How do you measure another person’s reverence?

yes our focus should be on Christ, but if you see someone receiving Christ in such a way that it is profaning Christ, would you just sit back and say nothing.

When they arrested our Lord, and Peter drew his sword striking another on the ear, what did Christ say?

Personally, again, you contradict the argument. What way can one RECEIVE Christ in a profane way?

Also, if I am focusing on Christ why am I looking at how others are receiving?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What way can one RECEIVE Christ in a profane way?

I wanted to ‘amend’ that question. What way can one RECEIVE Christ in a profane way, that can be seen with the eye?

 

[catholictiger]

I have bolded part of what the Pope said. Please show me where I am ‘misreading’ his words.

I think you are taking it out of context. What chapter did it come from, what was around this qoute and so on and so forth. I don’t think this is a endorsement of communion in the hand. I have said time and time again that communion in the hand is the exception, and on the tongue is the norm. While he doesn’t talk about it in this part its a sin of the heart, if we are in mortal sin no matter what part of the body caused it you shouldn’t receive Christ. Yes it is a matter of the heart if someone can receive it reverently, but recieving it on the tongue and kneeling helps you be more reverent.

you also must remember that when you recieve it in the hand it goes from the hand to the tongue so despite the fact that the tongue sins more then the hand. the host still goes on the tongue.

You also failed to address the fact that you reject any other reasons why the Pope gives communion a specific way. As per the example given, so that people don’t attempt to keep the host as a ‘keepsake’ from the Pope. Like or not, the Pope retains more than a celebrity status among Catholics and others.

why would he require kneeling along with on the tongue?

I have said that receiving in the hand is an indult. I’ve also stated that either way is acceptable to the authoritative of the Church.

in the united states yes, but fora counry to be able to recieve on the tongue the bishops much by 2/3rd majority say that its ok then it goes to the vatican where they approve it. The Vatican has said that where you can recieve on the hand you may not deny on the tongue. I suspect there are countries where communion on the hand isn’t allowed. Any way there are many way someone can irreverently receive the Eucharist. walking away with it is one bad thing. Recieveing it with a baby in one hand could be a bad way.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/a-look-at-the-posture-and-manner-of-receiving-holy-communion/

this does a nice job summing up my view on the issue.

in the united states, communion can be denied on the hand if there is a risk of profanity. The risk of profanity doesn’t exist when it is received on the tongue plain and simple.

Here is the contradiction as I see it. You are trying to show what is the ‘norm’ AND the MOST reverent. How do you measure another person’s reverence?

there are certain ways you can tell if a person is recieveing Christ in an irreverent manner. Lets say someone walks away before receiving it. That according to the GIRM irreverent.

When they arrested our Lord, and Peter drew his sword striking another on the ear, what did Christ say?

i have to go look it up but what is your point?

Personally, again, you contradict the argument. What way can one RECEIVE Christ in a profane way?

he profains the eucharist

he walks away

he attemps to dip it in the sacred blood.

and so on and so forth

here is something I found common Eucharist profanities

Blessing oneself with the host before consuming it. (The act of blessing with the Eucharist is called “Benediction” and is reserved to clergy).
• Receiving the host in the palm of the hand, contorting that same hand until the host is controlled by the fingers, then consuming it (resembling a one-handed “watch-the-coin-disappear” magic trick)
• Popping the host into the mouth like a piece of popcorn.
• Attempting to receive with only one hand.
• Attempting to receive with other items in the hands, like a dirty Kleenex or a Rosary.
• Receiving the host with dirty hands.
• Receiving the host, closing the hand around it, then letting the hand fall to the side (as if carrying a suitcase) while walking away and/or blessing oneself with the other hand.
• Walking away without consuming the host.
• Giving the host to someone else after receiving…yes, it happens!

When Holy Communion is received on the tongue…every single one of these abuses is instantly eliminated!

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/01/a-priest-who-gets-it-about-how-people-receive-communion/

Also, if I am focusing on Christ why am I looking at how others are receiving?

yes you are correct about that, but if I distribute the Eucharist as an extraordinary minister of holy communion, or if I am a priest, I will see this thing and I am doing what God is willing me to do.

While I’m not a priest, I have been an extraordinary minister of holy communion. I have seen a couple of these things, and I quoted a priest who saw those things.

 

[ElToro]

interesting article I stumbled upon.

I’m just going to post the 5myths go to the article itself to read everything else.

1. Mass facing the people.
2. Communion in the hand and under both kinds.
3. The vernacular.
4. Lay ministry.
5. The pre- vs. post-Constantinian Church

crisismagazine.com/2011/five-myths-about-worship-in-the-early-church

interesting read IMO.

Actually I suspect all 5 were actual practices of the early church. I question your sole source…

 

[catholictiger]

Actually I suspect all 5 were actual practices of the early church. I question your sole source…

please read the article, while it is an only source it still does a good job explaining it, and through the thread I have posted a couple of other sources.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you are taking it out of context. What chapter did it come from, what was around this qoute and so on and so forth. I don’t think this is a endorsement of communion in the hand. I have said time and time again that communion in the hand is the exception, and on the tongue is the norm. While he doesn’t talk about it in this part its a sin of the heart, if we are in mortal sin no matter what part of the body caused it you shouldn’t receive Christ. Yes it is a matter of the heart if someone can receive it reverently, but recieving it on the tongue and kneeling helps you be more reverent.

You didn’t show me where I misread the quote provided, yet you continue saying I’m taking it out of context? hmmm, please provide your interpretation of what is being said?

You persist to say receiving on the tongue is more reverent. Can you not be reverent and stand?

you also must remember that when you recieve it in the hand it goes from the hand to the tongue so despite the fact that the tongue sins more then the hand. the host still goes on the tongue.

Okay, let’s look at the first point he speaks of.

**
Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior.**

You persist on arguing that one form of behavior is more reverent than another.

why would he require kneeling along with on the tongue?

I guess you missed the first quotes I provided from the Holy Father. Rather than continue to ‘argue’ the points, please take time to read it fully.

Communion in the hand, or directly in the mouth?

**“I wouldn’t want to be fussy about it,” responded Cardinal Ratzinger. “It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion.”
**
On the issue of kneeling, however, Ratzinger takes a hard line.

**Kneeling devoutly should remain, says the Prefect, and this is crucial due to the current trend in many parts of the West, especially the U.S., of not only limiting kneeling but of ridding churches of kneelers.

“Communion used to be received kneeling, which made perfectly good sense,” says the Prefect. “Nowadays it is done standing. But this standing, too, should be standing in reverence before the Lord.** The attitude of kneeling ought never to be allowed to disappear from the Church. It is the most impressive physical expression of Christian piety, by which, on one hand, we remain upright, looking out, gazing upon Him, but, on the other, we nonetheless bow down.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

in the united states yes, but fora counry to be able to recieve on the tongue the bishops much by 2/3rd majority say that its ok then it goes to the vatican where they approve it. The Vatican has said that where you can recieve on the hand you may not deny on the tongue. I suspect there are countries where communion on the hand isn’t allowed. Any way there are many way someone can irreverently receive the Eucharist. walking away with it is one bad thing. Recieveing it with a baby in one hand could be a bad way.

How many times have I said, either way is acceptable? You seem to think it should be one way only.

in the united states, communion can be denied on the hand if there is a risk of profanity. The risk of profanity doesn’t exist when it is received on the tongue plain and simple.

there are certain ways you can tell if a person is recieveing Christ in an irreverent manner. Lets say someone walks away before receiving it. That according to the GIRM irreverent.

And it should be up to the Eucharistic minister, or the priest to determine the worthiness of a person attempting to receive wrongly.

All the laity should be FOCUSING on Christ and not watching to see if someone is doing it wrong.

i have to go look it up but what is your point?

Mat 26:52 Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?

My point was Christ is the sole judge of us all and doesn’t need us to ‘police’ for Him, just as He told Peter to stand down. I sincerely doubt Christ would want us to resort to violence on His behalf.

Now, let’s go a step further and recognize that there are authoritative men of the Church. It’s not up to the laity, unless you have received permission to serve as an Eucharistic minister.

he profains the eucharist

he walks away

he attemps to dip it in the sacred blood.

and so on and so forth

here is something I found common Eucharist profanities

yes you are correct about that, but if I distribute the Eucharist as an extraordinary minister of holy communion, or if I am a priest, I will see this thing and I am doing what God is willing me to do.

While I’m not a priest, I have been an extraordinary minister of holy communion. I have seen a couple of these things, and I quoted a priest who saw those things.

So, if there are people who would deliberately do wrong, we must FORCE everyone to do it another way?

You know, someone could place it in their mouth and walk away, remove it and profane it still. Should we just stop giving communion? It would surely prevent any possibility of any wrong doing. Just trying to give you something to think about.

Main point, you cannot see what’s in my heart and I receive standing and in the hand and I assure you, I am focusing on Christ. In my opinion, someone could kneel and receive on the tongue and still lack reverence in their heart and mind WHERE IT COUNTS THE MOST. We just cannot see what’s in someone’s heart, even though there are some who think they can make a judgment with their eye. That’s something Christ clearly taught against.