Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified ourfaith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GloriaPatri4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
tuopaolo:
Fr Groeschel is a holy PRIEST and that makes him more qualified than any so called lay-liturgist.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t make him any more qualified than a lay-liturgist. Both require training, and there are numerous priests who are lousy liturgists because they lack training.

By your logic, ordination makes one a better counselor than a lay-counselor. That also flies in the face of reality.

Fr Groeschel is entitled to his opinion, just as he is entitled to his opinion as to who would make the best selection for the next president. But ordination, per se, does not qualify him any more than any other individual on either the selection of the president or of liturgical acts. Training does qualify at least the latter; it may also qualify as to the former.

Furthermore, there are other priests who would say that Communion in the hand is to be preferred; they too are ordained. And unless they are qualified as a liturgist, their opinion is about as worthwhile as Fr. Groeschels; that is, it is their personal opinion.
 
40.png
otm:
No, it doesn’t make him any more qualified than a lay-liturgist. Both require training, and there are numerous priests who are lousy liturgists because they lack training.

By your logic, ordination makes one a better counselor than a lay-counselor. That also flies in the face of reality.
Click to expand...
Counseling can be offered by lay people. The Divine Liturgy or Mass can only be offered by the PRIEST.
 
I don’t think the question should be “has it strengthened your faith” but has it degraded the Eucharist. The lay population of the church has been faced with a steady degradation of the Eucharist for many years. Receiving the Eucharist in the hand is just one of the things, I believe, has lead to this fact.

I heard recently that over 70% of Catholics have the opinion that the Eucharist is a “symbol” of Jesus being served under the form of bread and wine. I am amazed at this. We, as Catholics, are to believe that when the priest consecrates the bread and wine and it is changed into the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The loss of respect and reverence of the Eucharist in our mass and our community, I believe, has caused our faithful to question this basic fact of our faith. We used to never touch the Eucharist, a lay person never addressed or entered the tabernacle, ciboriums were so precious that they were covered with humeral veils and never touched by lay hands when they contained the consecrated hosts, lay people were not supposed to enter the altar past the communion rail unless part of the Mass, and communion was always given on the tongue.

I have stated before that as a faith, we want to play down the uniqueness of our clergy, our religious celebrations, and of our Lord Himself.

Even our Lord, as it reads in Philippians 2:6, was seen as this: “Though He was in the form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at.” We too should realize that God is something to be treated with great reverence and part of this is not to “humanize” our faith to make people feel better. Certain things deserve the place of honor and respect we are supposed to bestow.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
So now the Church is attempting to erode our faith?
Click to expand...
I wonder when I will post something that you will* not *jump to conclusions with.:rolleyes:
 
40.png
beverly30:
This is definately only my opinion, but with His Blood- I see it as your touching glass on the outside. Since the outside of the glass doesn’t touch His Blood- I don’t believe that to be inappropriate.

Once again, my biggest concern is the change that has taken place. So many changes. I see all of these changes as causing Catholics who were once united to diversify. That to me is not good. This wasn’t a problem before Vatican II. When you start changing wordings, and actions (which is what happened with Vatican II) your going to cause diversity, and not unity in the Church. Prior to 1965 there weren’t all of these different groups of Catholic. When you said you were Catholic, people knew exactly which Catholic you were, the only one that existed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but before Vatican 2, there were at least three or four rites within the Roman rite; the Tridentine rite was by far the largest, but not the only one allowed. In addition to that there were, and still are about 22 other rites. So to say that one was “just a Catholic” really ignores the reality of the Church.

In fact, historically since the time after Trent when the Tridentine rite was settled, there were numerous changes. People seem to have no knowledge of history, and presume that everything has been in complete lockstep for eons. It hasn’t.

Having said that, the changes after Vatican 2 were, at best, poorly introduced, and that is what caused a large amount of the consternation people have.
 
Donna P:
I am not worthy to touch His Prescious Body. Is anyone?

God Bless,
Donna
Click to expand...
That is really not the issue; you and I and everyone else are not worthy to recieve. It is not an issue of worthiness, as we have none. It is an issue of what Christ gave us, as a free gift; we respond not out of worthiness but out of His mercy.

Receiving it on the tongue is no more worthy than receiving it in the hand and then placing it in one’s mouth.l It is, however, how christ distributed it to the Apostles, and the apostles, after His Ressurection, distributed it to the fatihful, and how the priests, ordained by the laying on of hands, distriburted it to the faithful, in the early Church.
 
40.png
rcn:
Not true, although it has fast become an “urban legend”.

The real story is here:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp Good link! Only 10% polled believe the Eucharist is purely symblic. That is a stat you do not hear often, but then the whole poll it rather flawed
 
“Therefore, when you come to receive, do not approach with hands extended and fingers open wide. Rather make your left hand a throne for your right as it is about to receive the King, and receive the Body of Christ in the fold of your hand, responding, ‘Amen.’ Take care that you lose not even one piece of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones.”

From Mystagogk Catechesis, widely attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a Doctor of the Church (A.D. 315-386).
 
The authenticity of that quotation is in doubt and controversial in some quarters.
 
mlchance said:
“Therefore, when you come to receive, do not approach with hands extended and fingers open wide. Rather make your left hand a throne for your right as it is about to receive the King, and receive the Body of Christ in the fold of your hand, responding, ‘Amen.’ **
Take care that you lose not even one piece of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones.”**

From Mystagogk Catechesis, widely attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a Doctor of the Church (A.D. 315-386).

Dear Mark,

Thank you for posting this. It’s a very beautiful quote .
Click to expand...
 
With the recent theft and sale (on eBay) of a consecrated Host, I think we should go back to *only *receiving Communion on the tongue.
 
40.png
justbeinfrank:
With the recent theft and sale (on eBay) of a consecrated Host, I think we should go back to only receiving Communion on the tongue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for not bothering to read the prior discussion.

It would have made no difference. It’s like having a car alarm or a security system - if someone really wants to steal something, they will.
 
I voted “Other”. I don’t think it’s a matter of Strengthening faith, at least not for me. I do see the issues like the “e-bay” situation as a problem, but personally (I’m no theologian) I think the Lord can take the insult / sacrilege itself better than he can the sinner’s doing it. That goes for any sin. He’s been there, done that…
 
I’ll be honest here… As a new Catholic, I am not all that comfortable with sticking the ol’ tongue out. Having anyone place something on my tongue feels strange and awkward. If accepting it in our hands reverently is wrong, why would our tongues be any better? What part of our body spreads evil and division more than our tongues? Spoken words have as great a potential for evil as the actions undertaken with our hands. I don’t understand the thinking here. Our whole person is fallen and dirty before Christ, isn’t it? Therefore, what difference does it make with the precise manner we take the host? It is through the eating the body and drinking the blood that we are brought closer to God and His perfect image for us–as well as brought into the Christian community. Besides, how did the disciples accept the bread and wine in the upper room? Did they use their hands?

As C.S. Lewis reminds us in The Weight of Glory, there are no “ordinary people”. Lewis continues on that “nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.” Our hands or our tongues. I suggest that neither is adequate to accept the host, since we do evil with both. On the other hand, we are physical creatures, so we must find a practical way to accept that which will make us the men and women God wants us to be.

This discussion is interesting, but it seems pretty nit-picky and centered more on the delivery method of the package than what the package means to each of us.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
Counseling can be offered by lay people. The Divine Liturgy or Mass can only be offered by the PRIEST.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Mass can only be offered by a priest has absolutely nothing to do with making that priest a liturgist. By your logic, we should accept whatever some liberal priest does as proper liturgy, because he, too, is ordained and says Mass.

A properly trained lay liturgist, I would submit, knows more about liturgy than some liberal priest ordained in 1975, who is still stuck in a time warp and thinks the liturgy is his personal stage for whatever moves him.

And if the properly trained lay liturgitst knows more than the liberal priest, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the same does not apply to Fr. Groeschel.

By the way, I enjoy listening to Fr. Groeschel. He is very wise, particularly in counseling. And he is entitled to his opinion about Communion in the hand, and that is just what it is: his opinion.
 
40.png
justbeinfrank:
With the recent theft and sale (on eBay) of a consecrated Host, I think we should go back to only receiving Communion on the tongue.
Click to expand...
Why?
  1. There has been no authentication that what purports to be a host was ever consecrated.
  2. You have made no showing whatsoever that the same thing could not have been done by someone receiving on the tongue. Are you truly so naieve as to think that sacrilige of the Host is a recent event? Dig around a little and you will find stories from long before Vatican 2 of individuals receiving on the tongue and removing the Host for nefarious purposes. It’s not like this is new.
 
40.png
rcn:
Thanks for not bothering to read the prior discussion.

It would have made no difference. It’s like having a car alarm or a security system - if someone really wants to steal something, they will.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not wise to have a car alarm or a security system since while that will not prevent all thefts it will prevent some. Likewise with Communion on the tongue.
 
40.png
otm:
The fact that the Mass can only be offered by a priest has absolutely nothing to do with making that priest a liturgist. By your logic, we should accept whatever some liberal priest does as proper liturgy, because he, too, is ordained and says Mass.

A properly trained lay liturgist, I would submit, knows more about liturgy than some liberal priest ordained in 1975, who is still stuck in a time warp and thinks the liturgy is his personal stage for whatever moves him.

And if the properly trained lay liturgitst knows more than the liberal priest, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the same does not apply to Fr. Groeschel.

By the way, I enjoy listening to Fr. Groeschel. He is very wise, particularly in counseling. And he is entitled to his opinion about Communion in the hand, and that is just what it is: his opinion.
Click to expand...
So you would listen to a “lay-liturgist” – something which is a liberal creation – over someone whom you yourself say is a very wise priest? Yes it is his opinion, but since he is a very wise priest, it is an opinion you should RESPECT. I’m not saying his opinion is correct – just that his opinion should be respected more than that of a “lay liturgist.” PRIESTS are trained in the liturgy. They are taught the meaning of the Mass as part of their seminary training. They have the charism of their orders. A lay liturgist doesn’t have those benefits. Lay liturgists are not part of the magisterium in any way. Priests as co-workers of their bishops function as organs of the magisterium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top