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

[Exporter]

Originally Posted by 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.**************

---

This is a correct statement. Because three American Bishops ALLOWED hand reception after Vat II Rome chose to “go along with it” to avoid strife. But Rome didnt teach hand reception was THE correct method - they only allowed it. Why I dont know.
Therefore, the practice of recieving on the tongue was maintained as it had been for centuries.
There may be some evidence that the Eucharist was recieved in the hand in the very early Church. That is of NO consequence. The Church was placed into St. Pater’s hands as a mature and complete Church. The Church has defines practices and Dogma since St. Peter, hasn’t it? Back in the Civil war the North had it on the books that every soldier would have a pickle per day. Is that the practice today? No. English sailors used to recieve run daily, do they do that today? No. Do you see the point?

 

[Exporter]

I agree with this,"

Originally Posted by 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. "

---

Permiting and teaching are not the same. The fact that someone found that some early church recieved in the hand is inconsequential. St. Peter was not handed a complete and mature church. So of the churches may have recieved by hand. The Roman Catholic Church has ,for centuries, that we will recieve on the tongue. That is indisputable.
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church now ALLOWS the Eucharist to be taken by hand is really an indult - not the real teaching. Wheather recieving on the tongue is an exhibit of more faith will be left to those who are Holier than I.

 

[cargopilot]

pnewton:

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

As an over-used EMHC, I can say, quite certainly, that there are particles. After communion, in the sacristy, I’m amazed at the particles remaining in the ciborium. I’m pretty sure that the number of particles left in the ciborium translates to particles in the communicants hand, on their clothing and on the floor to be mopped and vacuumed. People will fumble with, drop and even steal the Precious Body of Christ. Much, if not all, could be avoided if Communion in the hand were banned.

I know that the hand-takers far, far outweigh on the tongue crowd, but if we really believe it IS Jesus, do we want him to end up in the mop water?

 

[Exporter]

cargopilot:

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

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

“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.”

Quote:By Exporter

I can truthfully say that I have never recieved the Eucharist in the hand and I dont think that I ever will.

Quote by Byzcatholic
“And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?”

---

The subject of this thread is wheather or not recieving the Eucharist by hand has increased the faith of those who do that practice - it is a practice NOT a dicipline - BTW.

The thread is not about China nor the price of anything in China.Rather than use diversionary tactics please stick to the subject. It would be profitaable for you to actually these posts before commenting.

 

[Exporter]

Hey Byzz, Determine the subject of the thread before commenting. You seem to be having a problem in determining which posts are irrelevent and which are relavent.

It would be prudent to actually the postss before commenting. You missed the point completely with one of my posts. Words mean things.

 

[pnewton]

cargopilot:

As an over-used EMHC, I can say, quite certainly, that there are particles.

This is simply not an issue with our bread. I do not know the diffence, but I have never seen a single particle. If I ever do, I will, of course consume it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Exporter:

Quote by Byzcatholic
“And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?”

---

The subject of this thread is wheather or not recieving the Eucharist by hand has increased the faith of those who do that practice - it is a practice NOT a dicipline - BTW.

Actually a practice is a matter of discipline.

One of the definintions of discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity. The maner in which the Eucharist can be recieved is a matter of discipline in the Church. Tthe Church lays out the guildlines for such reception.

The thread is not about China nor the price of anything in China.Rather than use diversionary tactics please stick to the subject. It would be profitaable for you to actually these posts before commenting.

It would be profitable for you if you would learn a bit about expressions. The term “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China” is an expression which is used to denote something which is unrelated to the current topic of discussion. Or are you truely that thick?

Here is a link to go to if you do not believe me, price of tea in China

Exporter:

Hey Byzz, Determine the subject of the thread before commenting. You seem to be having a problem in determining which posts are irrelevent and which are relavent.

It would be prudent to actually the postss before commenting. You missed the point completely with one of my posts. Words mean things.

Hey Expy, you are one rude individual aren’t. Again, my user name is ByzCath and my name is David, I do not understand why you can’t seem to get that into your head.

I have no problems. It seems to be you with the problems understanding topics and word, expression, meanings.

If I missed some point you were trying to make then I suggest that you restate the point you were trying to make as if I missed it, it was most likely becuase you didn’t do a good enough job in explaining your point.

Part of the problem I have with your posts is the odd usage of font sizes and bolding. the fact that much of your posts is cut and pasted material from other sites rather than original thought, and your odd convention of quoteing others. Rather than using the quote feature of the forum you seem to use **** or other things.

The main reason I reply to you is not to win you over as I do not think that is possible. I reply so that those who do not know better will not be lead astray. I stand up for the Church and all it Teaches.

 

[mlchance]

On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, in its catechesis about this optional practice, drew attention to these considerations:

a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.

b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.

c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of Communion in the hand.

d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established. Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide the necessary instruction. (See also the Roman Ritual, , no. 21.)

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

One of the definintions of discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity. The maner in which the Eucharist can be recieved is a matter of discipline in the Church. Tthe Church lays out the guildlines for such reception.

One thing that is often lost in discussions about “discipline” is that discipline is not unrelated to doctrine. Disciplines are at least indirectly related to doctrines.

Or are you truely that thick?

You call Exp rude yet you seem to be just as rude here to him.

Hey Expy, you are one rude individual aren’t. Again, my user name is ByzCath and my name is David, I do not understand why you can’t seem to get that into your head.

He referred to you as “Byzz” – it’s just shorthand for “ByzCath” … I don’t see how it is being rude.

I hope you two are able to get along

Respectfully,

 

[harveyc]

Stone Cold:

*Removing the communion rail is not just detremental because it gives the faithful the false idea that kneeling for communion is no longer allowed. *
Andreas Hofer:

Actually, in the dioceses of the United States it isn’t allowed. Thank your Conference of Catholic Bishops for that gem.

Sorry for the solo string of posts. No one’s really awake for a back and forth with an insomniac college student.

Actually, kneeling for Holy Communion in the United States is allowed. While not the official norm, the Office of Divine Worship and Disclipline of the Sacraments made it clear to the U.S. bishops that a communicant would not be denied Holy Communion on the basis of them kneeling. Please see IGMR 160 here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How can one tell what effect - if any - communion in the hand may have had ?​

ISTM that this can be answered only by individuals - not by looking at general trends in the life of the Church; because individuals know what their attitudes to the Eucharist are, whereas figures for the frequency of communion (say) may be explained in a dozen different ways. Figures are not articulate, and can’t explain themselves, unlike human beings. ##

 

[netmilsmom]

## How can one tell what effect - if any - communion in the hand may have had ?

ISTM that this can be answered only by individuals - not by looking at general trends in the life of the Church; because individuals know what their attitudes to the Eucharist are, whereas figures for the frequency of communion (say) may be explained in a dozen different ways. Figures are not articulate, and can’t explain themselves, unlike human beings. ##

I agree!

 

[TOME]

I haven’t read all the post for this thread, but those I have read shows that there may be a real misunderstanding, even ignorance on why reception of Communion is in the Hand, and why even the alter rails were removed. If my assumption is true (and we all know about assumptions) then I see a real failure in the proper catechsis by those responsible for teaching it.

The post I have seen focus on the “How” this reception of the Eucharist is done, but I haven’t seen any discussion as to the “Why”.

An important aspect that came out of Vat II was a renewed awareness of the fact that through Baptism we all share in Christ’s priesthhood. True, the ordained priesthood has a special role in the Mass. Transsubstiantion can only occur by Christ acting the the ordained priest, but the Mass itself is not just the act of the priest. Through Baptism we all share in the worship of the Father. It is a communal act, we all have a share in it.

The alter rails put a boundry, a barrier to this understanding just as the thought that since the priest’s hand’s were anointed, only they were worthy to touch the body of Christ with their hand. Vat II renewed the understanding that we all are worthy by right of our Baptism.

It seems for many, this emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful is a “Protestant Thing” but this is as old as the Church itself.

 

[Petertherock]

I think the real question is does recieving Communion by mouth strengthen and clairify our faith?

When Jesus first instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday did he take the bread which was His body and place it in the Apostles mouth?

 

[twiztedseraph]

The fact that people insist on popping Jesus into their mouths like a cookie is disturbing. So yes it has apostolic roots, whoopy. It worked back then, but right now I think we have to acknowledge its not only a failure, its downright blasphemous. To further this, how many of you wash hands before you eat? I’m hoping all, now how many of you wash your hands before receiving Jesus?

I take in the hand only when absolutely necessary, even then I find myself licking my palms, lest I leave even a speck behind. All in all its not only more reverent to receive on the tongue, its also less hassle.

 

[batteddy]

Well, we must remember, that under the accidents of bread and wine…Christ is impassible. That is, nothing done to the accidents of bread and wine will actually effect Christ.

So it is really the attitude of the people involved. Do they intent to blaspheme Christ by what they do? Does it cause a lack of reverence?

If a host is dropped on the ground, Christ himself will not be hurt and won’t necessarily care.

Yet the Church must treat such an event very gravely in order to inspire awe and reverence for the Eucharist in the faithful. They must treat the Eucharist very specially, lest people forget that it IS intrinsically special.

 

[rjs1]

How is treating God with less respect susposed to strengthen our faith?

I am an usher at a Cathedral and the abuses I witness and have to stop are appalling. People too often try and walk away with the Sacrament. We often get tourists at the Cathedral who join the Communion line, take the Host and then look at it with the expression “What do I do with this?”

The way Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is now being treated is a scandal crying out to Heaven for God’s judgement.

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t think it has much effect one way or another. Catechesis and preparation, forming the heart to recognize God when one approaches is the key. That seems to be a function of good leadership and active parish community more than rubrics. Typically I’ll either notice a lot of “ho hum” attitudes or very few, although I think a greater lack of reverence might be found in rural areas like where I live because of the lack of Catholic schools resulting in more hit-or-miss catechesis.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

Its not a rural area, I live in the Archdiocese of Newark which is parallel to the NYC one. So the lack of Catholic schools is not to blame for the lack of reverence taught to our youth. The lack of reverence IMO comes from the lack of mystery and supernaturalism that surrounds the most Holy Eucharist at our mass.

We frequently sing the Agnus Dei like it’s a pop song, the lack of incense, the distribution of the Holy Eucharist by lay people, the reception in the hands ( when not properly preceded by a bow or genuflection), among other things.

We (meaning our Bishops) in some cases abandoned reason for madness. Have embraced Ecumenicalism over tradition and have move the Church and our mass on a path for “greater involvement” and “inclusion”.
Disclaimer : I am not a so called ‘rad-trad’, I believe in the validity of the Pauline Mass because it is celebrated by a properly ordained minister who does indeed consecrate wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ. His holiness Benedict the XIV is the rightful vicar of Christ on earth and VAT II was indeed a valid council.

On the other hand the new mass does include language and motions which are very protestant. And it does feel that it has indeed watered down Catholicism and made us ‘diet Catholics’.

Anthony

 

[athanasiusrc]

Kielbasi:

A 5’1" EM trying to give communion on the tongue to a 6’5" communicant is just plain awkward.

Aren’t Communion rails great? They take care of all sorts of problems.