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

[Exporter]

michance,

You may have the record for the Longest post on CA. Wow! You wrote “:No. A straw man is when the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.”

---

“A strawman IS WHEN”. When implies a certain time either calender time or clock time. Why did you write IS WHEN? Is there a problem with sentance construction? I am from Texas too, I “speak Texan” but the words you wrote, “Is WHEN”, ruined the meaning of your sentance for me. Can you rewrite that in common English?

The question was about recieving the Eucharist by hand and it’s effects upon increasing the faith of the laity.How can this be measured? Has it been measured?

I can truthfully say that I have never recieved the Eucharist in the hand and I dont think that I ever will. If I had walked up the Communion line and extended my hands to the Priest to recieve the Eucharist just 35 years ago - I think the Priest would think I was either not a Roman Catholic or I was mentally deficient.

From what I see at Mass this disrespectful practice has not helped our faith. It has made some people forget what the Eucharist is.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Exporter:

The question was about recieving the Eucharist by hand and it’s effects upon increasing the faith of the laity.How can this be measured? Has it been measured?

The manner in which the Eucharist is recieved in no way is done to increase our faith. It is reception, period, that does this.

You, and others like you, claim that reception on the hand has diminished faith, seeing that you are making this claim you must provide proof of it.

I can truthfully say that I have never recieved the Eucharist in the hand and I dont think that I ever will. If I had walked up the Communion line and extended my hands to the Priest to recieve the Eucharist just 35 years ago - I think the Priest would think I was either not a Roman Catholic or I was mentally deficient.

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you would have tried to recieve the Precious Blood back then you would have gotten the same reaction. So by your argument here we should not be recieveing from the Chalice.

From what I see at Mass this disrespectful practice has not helped our faith. It has made some people forget what the Eucharist is.

So now the Church teaches disrespect? Again, this is a perfect example of a post hoc fallacy.

 

[rcn]

Exporter:

but the words you wrote, “Is WHEN”, ruined the meaning of your sentance for me.

Unbelievable. Anything to change the subject, right?

The question was about recieving the Eucharist by hand and it’s effects upon increasing the faith of the laity.How can this be measured? Has it been measured?

How can you measure “faith”? Obviously, it can’t be measured. The premise of this thread has always been flawed. It is pointless to ask whether one mode of reception or the other strengthens (or weakens) one’s faith. I’m sure that was not even a consideration when permission for Hand Reception was granted.

If I had walked up the Communion line and extended my hands to the Priest to recieve the Eucharist just 35 years ago - I think the Priest would think I was either not a Roman Catholic or I was mentally deficient.

Again, absolutely irrelevant. Church discipline has changed since 35 years ago. And the slur against the mentally deficient is definitely inappropriate.

From what I see at Mass this disrespectful practice has not helped our faith. It has made some people forget what the Eucharist is.

There seem to be two camps here - those who respect the authority of the Church in matters of discipline and have no problem with either method, and those on the “I receive on the tongue only” bandwagon, who are making all manner of irrelevant, speculative, and just plain incorrect arguments to try to defend their stance.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

rcn:

There seem to be two camps here - those who respect the authority of the Church in matters of discipline and have no problem with either method, and those on the “I receive on the tongue only” bandwagon, who are making all manner of irrelevant, speculative, and just plain incorrect arguments to try to defend their stance.

I receive on the tongue only, and I feel no need to try to defend my stance.
The Church hasn’t forbidden Communion on the tongue, last time I checked, so no need to defend my choice.
You seem to think that those who receive on the tongue do not “respect the authority of the Church in matters of discipline.” Rather judgemental!
Where have those who receive on the tongue demonstrated disrespect toward the the authority of the Church? :bigyikes:

And no, I don’t think that placing the Host in the communicant’s hand has done anything to increase the faithful’s reverence for the Sacrament, but that’s just my humble opinion.

This was an opinion poll, wasn’t it?

 

[pnewton]

rcn:

There seem to be two camps here - those who respect the authority of the Church in matters of discipline and have no problem with either method, and those on the “I receive on the tongue only” bandwagon, who are making all manner of irrelevant, speculative, and just plain incorrect arguments to try to defend their stance.

Panis Angelicus has a legitimate point. There is nothing wrong with the “I receive on the tongue only” stance. It is honorable and traditional stance that is deserving of respect. Many people believe in this and respect the authority of the church.

said months ago that this poll is inherently flawed. There will never be any proof of any kind for either position. What we can do is not badger each other.

 

[cargopilot]

I’ll admit, I’m in the ‘tongue only’ camp.

I have to ask one question. What about the particles?

 

[pnewton]

cargopilot:

I’ll admit, I’m in the ‘tongue only’ camp.

I have to ask one question. What about the particles?

I always examine my hand. In six years, I have never seen one particle. I guess we have good bakers.

 

[Exporter]

BYZCATHOLIC,

1. If you are not Roman Catholic then you have no say in this matter. But it does seem you want to interject your thoughts.
2. Are you capable of dispensing logic? When you have contidicted me, it is not my place to proove my point - rather, it is your place to supercede the contridiction of yours to my satisfaction. This means that if you are going “jump in” on a conversation- it is not logical -and also it is rude for you, the interloper, to demand proof of a fact or opinion.

You byzcatholic wrote this ; "
Quote:
**Originally Posted by Exporter
*The question was about recieving the Eucharist by hand and it’s effects upon increasing the faith of the laity.How can this be measured? Has it been measured? *

The manner in which the Eucharist is recieved in no way is done to increase our faith. It is reception, period, that does this.

You, and others like you, claim that reception on the hand has diminished faith, seeing that you are making this claim you must provide proof of it."

---

Your first sentance shows me that you didn’t read my post. Cant you see that since I asked,“Has it been measured” infers a basic falicy in the original question - and cant be answered? Cant you see that?

The ," You AND OTHERS LIKE YOU " phrase is condisending. I can proove it if you will attend Mass with me and we watch the people, how they recieve and how they act after they return to their pews. I have seen some just sprawl in the pew as if they were at a movie. Those that recieve on the tongue are kneeling afterwards. You see, that picture cannot be brought to this thread. Lastly, remember you are NOT Roman Catholic, so dont be telling “us Roman Catholics” how we are wrong…please. If I have any question about Roman Catholic practices and/or Theology should I ask you, byzcatholic?**

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

BYZCATHOLIC,

1. If you are not Roman Catholic then you have no say in this matter. But it does seem you want to interject your thoughts.

Here we go again… I will say it one more time for you, will even bold it as it seems you have trouble processing this.

I am a Catholic, while I may be a Byzantine Catholic, I am still a Catholic. I am also in the process of applying to the Carmelites with the goal of one day being a bi-ritual priest.

**2. Are you capable of dispensing logic? When you have contidicted me, it is not my place to proove my point - rather, it is your place to supercede the contridiction of yours to my satisfaction. **

Yes I am, it is you who do not understand logic as it is you who are claiming that something is missing, it is your job to prove it. I have nothing to prove to you.

This means that if you are going “jump in” on a conversation- it is not logical -and also it is rude for you, the interloper, to demand proof of a fact or opinion.

I guess you do not understand what a public forum is. As this is a public forum I in no way “jump in” on a converstation. Or must I supply a definition of public to you?

I am also not demanding proof of an opinion. I am asking you to prove what you claim to be fact.

But as you require proof from me. That the reception of the Eucharist has nothing to do with increasing our faith I give you this Canon from the Council of Trent from the Seventh Session.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that these sacraments were instituted for the sake of nourishing faith alone; let him be anathema.

So there, the sacraments are not for the nourishing of faith alone.

I have yet to see anywhere that says reception of the Eucharist, in any way, is for the increase of faith.

It does strike me as funny how those who push the reception of the Eucharist in a certain manner are just those who recieve on the tongue. What does it matter if others wish to recieve in the hand, how does this affect you?

This who think reminds me of the story of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

 

[rcn]

Panis Angelicas:

You seem to think that those who receive on the tongue do not “respect the authority of the Church in matters of discipline.”

That is not what I said. Or at least not what I meant.

Anyone who’s been following this thread can see quite easily that all the spurious arguments, straw men, post hoc’s, etc. have been presented by people who urge “tongue only”. No one here has said that tongue reception is improper. Likewise, one must not say that hand reception is improper, because that would deny the authority of the Church to regulate matters of discipline.

 

[tuopaolo]

mlchance:

No, the Church is the best teacher, and the Church teaches it is right to receive in the hand.

The Church has spoken; thus ends the argument.

The Church doesn’t teach that it is right to receive in the hand. The Church permits people to receive in the hand in some places. The Church does not teach that receiving in the hand and receiving on the tongue are equally respectful. In fact Francis Cardinal Arinze – as noted in this thread IIRC (if not then another) – has stated that Communion received on the tongue is in a way more respectful.

The State permits people to fornicate. That doesn’t mean that the State teaches that fornication is right. Likewise, just because the Church permits some people in some places to receive on the hand doe snot mean that the Church teaches that doing so is right. It’s like the foot washing controversy. The Church permitted the feet of women to washed recently – at least in one US (arch)diocese with Vatican approbation – this doesn’t mean that the Church taught that it was right to wash women’s feet. It just meant that it was permitted.

 

[mlchance]

Panis Angelicas:

Where have those who receive on the tongue demonstrated disrespect toward the the authority of the Church?

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand equated to fornication:

tuopaolo:

The State permits people to fornicate. That doesn’t mean that the State teaches that fornication is right. Likewise, just because the Church permits some people in some places to receive on the hand does not mean that the Church teaches that doing so is right.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

“A strawman IS WHEN”. When implies a certain time either calender time or clock time. Why did you write IS WHEN? Is there a problem with sentance construction? I am from Texas too, I “speak Texan” but the words you wrote, “Is WHEN”, ruined the meaning of your sentance for me. Can you rewrite that in common English?

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Given the minimum of eight errors in capitalization, spelling, and punctuation in your paragraph above, you might be best served by spending some time with a manual of style. I recommend the Chicago Manual of Style.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[malcolm_davies]

Hi from Australia,

we are down to about 10% of catholics going to regular sunday mass with about 2% going to daily mass.

the catholics still going to mass have a reasonbly strong faith with about 80% receiving communion in the hand and 20% on the tongue (I know this because I have been an extraordinary minister for 20 years).

The reception in the hand or toungue is not the issue here - it is the lack of understanding/committment to the whole catholic faith of the 90% of catholics who only go to mass at christmas/easter.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

The Church doesn’t teach that it is right to receive in the hand. The Church permits people to receive in the hand in some places.

The Church permits?

So how can the Church permit something but not teach that it is right to do?

You are implying that the that the Church is allowing something that it knows is wrong. The Church can not and does not do this.

 

[MAGDALENE27]

I don’t know if it has strengthend our faith, but Jesus himself said, "TAKE and eat.

 

[Exporter]

BYZCATHOLIC,

Perhaps you being a Non Roman Catholic you don’t know the history and development of the New Practice of recieving the Eucharist in the hand.

Briefly we can say that all Roman Catholics recieved on the tongue for centuries aand canturies - it was accepted that to recieve via the tongue was correct and respectful - so it was done.

Then after Vatican II some Bishops in the U.S. saw a crack in the wall so to speak. They interpreted one sentance of Vatican II to mean that other practices for recieving the Eucharist were allowable.

I belive it was three Bishops who collabarated to allow the use of the hand for recieving. They did it. Later it came to the attebtion of the Pope. He decided to not demand aa change back to the NORM but to go along with it. This hand recieving DID NOT come from Rome initially. It was an illicite practice that originated from 3 US Bishops. That was a mistake by the Pope.

 

[Exporter]

tuopaolo:

The Church doesn’t teach that it is right to receive in the hand. The Church permits people to receive in the hand in some places. The Church does not teach that receiving in the hand and receiving on the tongue are equally respectful. In fact Francis Cardinal Arinze – as noted in this thread IIRC (if not then another) – has stated that Communion received on the tongue is in a way more respectful.

The State permits people to fornicate. That doesn’t mean that the State teaches that fornication is right. Likewise, just because the Church permits some people in some places to receive on the hand doe snot mean that the Church teaches that doing so is right. It’s like the foot washing controversy. The Church permitted the feet of women to washed recently – at least in one US (arch)diocese with Vatican approbation – this doesn’t mean that the Church taught that it was right to wash women’s feet. It just meant that it was permitted.

---

THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

The Church PERMITS recieving via the hand.

THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT!
(no matter what some of the laity say.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Exporter:

BYZCATHOLIC,

Perhaps you being a Non Roman Catholic you don’t know the history and development of the New Practice of recieving the Eucharist in the hand.

Just to let you know, my user name here is ByzCath. My name is David. But I assume you are speaking to me here.

I do not need you to teach me about the Catholic Church nor its practices.

Briefly we can say that all Roman Catholics recieved on the tongue for centuries aand canturies - it was accepted that to recieve via the tongue was correct and respectful - so it was done.

It is a known fact and not in dispute that reception of the Eucharist on the tongue is a long standing practice. It is also a known fact that reception of the Eucharist is an ancient practice from the early Church, so this really means nothing and also disproves the “more respectful” argument.

I belive it was three Bishops who collabarated to allow the use of the hand for recieving. They did it. Later it came to the attebtion of the Pope. He decided to not demand aa change back to the NORM but to go along with it. This hand recieving DID NOT come from Rome initially. It was an illicite practice that originated from 3 US Bishops. That was a mistake by the Pope.

Yes, it did start out as an illicit practice. That is a vaild argument against it but the Pope did allow it. I will not call what the Holy Father did a mistake but then I am obedient and take all the Holy Father says, even when I disagree with it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

**************************************************************************
THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

The Church PERMITS recieving via the hand.

THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT!
(no matter what some of the laity say.)

We can talk about something in the Indult Mass that the Church permited also.

There was a time in the Church when reception of the Eucharist was done under both Species. This has how it has always been in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

But there came a day when in the Latin Catholic Church there was the idea that if you did not recieve the Eucharist under both Species that you did not recieve Christ wholely. That Communion under one Species was somehow deficient.

So rather than doing proper catechisis, the Church mandated that reception of the Eucharist by the laity would only be under the Species of Bread.

Now the Church has returned to this ancient usage. Why are you not upset about this in the same way that you are upset about reception of Communion in the Hand.

By your logic, as you see a decrease in faith and blame reception in the Hand, I would add that if this is so, then it is also right to say that this decrease in faith goes with reception of the Eucharist under both Species.

That would be absurd for me to say. Just as absurd as what you say. As well as the fact that there is no way to prove it.