How do you receive the Body of Christ?

[choy]

You know what choy, your opinion as to what people are or are not doing doesn’t mean that much to me. My opinion counts too and that’s I how feel.

I’m not promoting a personal agenda, I referenced information I received from my Pastor. I will see if I can find the bulletin and quote it precisely. And then I will be finished with these “Traditional Catholic” people who seem to find calling their fellow Catholic a liar such an easy thing to do. Including you.

Goodbye. I will not respond to you again. I fear I cannot do so, again, and maintain the charitable position required. And you have been highly provocative, more than once. SO please, get away from me.

Melanie, its one thing to have an opinion, its another to express a statement as a fact. what you stated about in your story is not an opinion, but you relayed a message you took in as fact. sharing a message that supposedly came from the Pope is a serious matter and as Catholics we are very loyal to the Pope. so any information that is claimed to come from him must be scrutinized, lest other people might use this to mislead us

a lot of people, myself included, take a lot of information in from CAF. sometimes we can be a bit careless when sharing information (i have been many, many times). it is important that we set our facts straight, otherwise we may be unwillingly leading others to misinformation. i never called you a liar, but you can believe whatever you want

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie, its one thing to have an opinion, its another to express a statement as a fact. what you stated about in your story is not an opinion, but you relayed a message you took in as fact. sharing a message that supposedly came from the Pope is a serious matter and as Catholics we are very loyal to the Pope. so any information that is claimed to come from him must be scrutinized, lest other people might use this to mislead us

a lot of people, myself included, take a lot of information in from CAF. sometimes we can be a bit careless when sharing information (i have been many, many times). it is important that we set our facts straight, otherwise we may be unwillingly leading others to misinformation. i never called you a liar, but you can believe whatever you want

What was it that I communicated as fact? I communicated that the Church had noted that there was a problem and a means to solve the problem was under consideration. That’s all I ever stated.

And from there, I was told that I had to be a liar because the Pope never said they were changing anything.

But I never said that anything had been changed, I never said that anything had been announced. I said that the matter was UNDER CONSIDERATION.

Perhaps some posters misread it, I have no idea. But failing to actually read what I wrote doesn’t give anyone the right to call me a liar. And that’s what happened.

 

[ProVobis]

I try to receive either spiritually or both sacramentally and spiritually.

Threefold Manner Of Communicating

That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.

Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.

Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I try to receive either spiritually or both sacramentally and spiritually.

ProVobis,
Thank you for posting this.
Can you please provide a source.

Thanks!

 

[ProVobis]

ProVobis,
Thank you for posting this.
Can you please provide a source.

Thanks!

It’s the Catechism of Trent.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

 

[Isaiah_41]

A common theme I have seen in these forums is the is the Communion On The Hand vs. Communion On The Tongue debate.

It is my expereince that some of those who prefer COTT would like to see CITH done away with, and, in general, blame CITH for a multitude of things they dislike in the Church.

I was born in 1970, the Missal of Paul VI is all I know,
and CITH has been the “norm” in my diocese for long as I can remember.

I personally do not care how one chooses to receive, and I respect anyone who follows their conscience for the sake of humility and reverence for God. I do not believe that anyone should be ridiculed or have their level of faith called into question, soley based on how they receive communion. I have received on the tongue, kneeling at the altar rail (my husband grew up in a very traditional parish). I have received standing and on the tongue. I find CITH to be the best way for me, yet was never really able to explain why.

I am studying theology and last semester took a course in Sacramental Theology. In one of the books I read, The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body, Fr. Louis-Marie Chauvet says the following:

“It is in the very nature of the church to confess that the sacraments it celebrates in faith in the name of Jesus Christ have a spiritual efficacy called ‘grace,’ a beautiful term. The most forceful expression of this grace is no doubt that extremely sparing one given us in the diologue of eucharistic communion: to the statement, ‘The body of Christ’, Christians answer, not witht he description of their feelings or the difficulties that their intellect might struggle with, but simply with the ‘amen’ of faith. This amen comes from the mouth and the heart, of course, but also from the whole body since it is manifested by the opening of the hands into which the pure gift of God is placed. The gratuitous communication of God withthe believers, such is the salient point of the sacraments.”

This put words to what I have long felt when I receive. For one moment, I am touching God, and actually feeling His embrace. I beleive to truly appreciate any gift, one must have a moment of private adoration of it, and then one must choose to make use of it.

This is how I see CITH- I am opening my heart, mind, soul ***and body *** to receive the gift, and making the conscious decision to become what I receive.

Comments, thoughts?

Peace to all!

Pax Vobiscum!
I like to say the Divine Mercy chaplet on the way up for Holy Communion.

 

[ljubim]

I receive kneeling and on the tongue, wherever I am at any Latin Rite Mass, Traditional or otherwise. Growing up with only CITH, it was a big change but I sincerely felt that God wanted me to do this. Whoever called it an “ostentatious display of holiness” is way off the mark. Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It’s the Catechism of Trent.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

Thanks for the link!

I have never seen this before, what a great read!!

 

[Ockham]

I personally do not care how one chooses to receive, and I respect anyone who follows their conscience for the sake of humility and reverence for God.

The 'follow your own conscious" philosophy is not one taught by the Church. It is more of a Protestant justification for all sorts of non-Catholic practices and principles. The Pro-Choice movement uses it also.

The history of CITH is one of disobedience and abuse.

How do I receive the Body of Christ? Indultless.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The 'follow your own conscious" philosophy is not one taught by the Church. It is more of a Protestant justification for all sorts of non-Catholic practices and principles. The Pro-Choice movement uses it also.

The history of CITH is one of disobedience and abuse.

How do I receive the Body of Christ? Indultless.

But the Church has said that receiving both ways are valid.

Are you saying that the Church is teaching “Protestant philosophy”?

Regardless of how the indult came to be, it is still acceptable to receive in the hand or on the tongue.

I do not wish to prevent anyone from receiving on the tongue, why does it seem that so many others what to prevent me from receiving in the hand. Or worse yet, call into question whether my “thinking” is truly “Catholic” or some sort of “Protestant justification”?

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

I used to receive Holy Communion in the hand, but I do not anymore and never will again.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

None of the Saints have encouraged this, and John Paul II himself said that to *touch *the Sacred Species is a **privilege **of the ordained.

As we’re not ordained, we have no business handling the Eucharist. And in my opinion - based on much experience with people - to insist on taking Holy Communion in the hand (with full knowledge of what is shown on the video and the previous quote) is the sin of sacrilege resulting from pride.

 

[MarkThompson]

None of the Saints have encouraged this, and John Paul II himself said that to *touch *the Sacred Species is a **privilege **of the ordained.

You’re forgetting St. Cyril of Jerusalem, clearly.

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

You’re forgetting St. Cyril of Jerusalem, clearly.

St. Cyril encouraged this, did he? When? Are you referring to the document that scholars doubt to really be his?

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

 

[otjm]

I used to receive Holy Communion in the hand, but I do not anymore and never will again.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

None of the Saints have encouraged this, and John Paul II himself said that to *touch *the Sacred Species is a **privilege **of the ordained.

As we’re not ordained, we have no business handling the Eucharist. And in my opinion - based on much experience with people - to insist on taking Holy Communion in the hand (with full knowledge of what is shown on the video and the previous quote) is the sin of sacrilege resulting from pride.

If you want to quote John Paul 2, then quote all he said about it, not one sentance. He reversed the rule, which means that his statement was not absolute but rather time-specific.

And as to no saints commenting or encouraging, you need to do a bit more research.

Your opinion is not based on what the Church says, so your comment about it being sinful is judgemental and out of order.

Coupled with that is the fact that there is no evidence of which I am aware that indicates that receiving on the tongue was the mode the Apostles taught; the first comment about how people received in the early Church appears to be that they received in the hand; from that it is at least arguable that receiving in the hand is what Christ taught the Apostles and what they subsequently taught. However, there is no proof one way of the other.

The norm for the Roman rite universally is on the tongue, and you are most welcome to receive that way. But given that Rome has made it clear that permission is given to receive in the hand, you have absolutley no business whatsoever calling it sinful.

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

If you want to quote John Paul 2, then quote all he said about it, not one sentance. He reversed the rule, which means that his statement was not absolute but rather time-specific.

And as to no saints commenting or encouraging, you need to do a bit more research.

I’m aware of what he said later, but that only shows weakness on his part, God rest his soul. As to the saints, you accuse me of being misinformed yet provide nothing to back that up.

Your opinion is not based on what the Church says, so your comment about it being sinful is judgemental and out of order.

My opinion is based on what the Church has said until recently.

Coupled with that is the fact that there is no evidence of which I am aware that indicates that receiving on the tongue was the mode the Apostles taught;

There a document that says they gave It in the hand? Besides, lack of reverence probably wasn’t an issue in the days when every Christian was being martyred.

The norm for the Roman rite universally is on the tongue, and you are most welcome to receive that way. But given that Rome has made it clear that permission is given to receive in the hand, you have absolutley no business whatsoever calling it sinful.

I do if the Church has said it is sinful. Is it not sinful anymore? It was abused, and some thought it better to let it slide; that doesn’t justify the act. Just like the New Code doesn’t say that Catholics who become Freemasons are considered excommunicated, doesn’t change the fact that they still are.

I’m not saying that Catholics who receive Holy Communion in the hand are evil and proud, as when I did it I was full of love for God and considered myself honored. But knowing what the Church has said, how the Saints felt regarding the Eucharist, and WHY-HOW Communion in hand became permitted in the Church, one can’t continue to justify receiving that way.

 

[otjm]

I’m aware of what he said later, but that only shows weakness on his part, God rest his soul. As to the saints, you accuse me of being misinformed yet provide nothing to back that up.

My opinion is based on what the Church has said until recently.

There a document that says they gave It in the hand? Besides, lack of reverence probably wasn’t an issue in the days when every Christian was being martyred.

I do if the Church has said it is sinful. Is it not sinful anymore? It was abused, and some thought it better to let it slide; that doesn’t justify the act. Just like the New Code doesn’t say that Catholics who become Freemasons are considered excommunicated, doesn’t change the fact that they still are.

I’m not saying that Catholics who receive Holy Communion in the hand are evil and proud, as when I did it I was full of love for God and considered myself honored. But knowing what the Church has said, how the Saints felt regarding the Eucharist, and WHY-HOW Communion in hand became permitted in the Church, one can’t continue to justify receiving that way.

What the Church has said, is that it is permissible. You are playing the Protestant card of pick and choose. We are expected to pick and choose as you do, or we are guilty of the sin of pride.

Oh, and every Christian being martyred? Nice hyperbole…

 

[floresco]

What the Church has said, is that it is permissible. You are playing the Protestant card of pick and choose. We are expected to pick and choose as you do, or we are guilty of the sin of pride.

The Church has said CITH is permissible. The Church has not said the two methods are of equal value. One is the norm; the other is an indult. It is clear from what the Church has said which is better. The current norm is and the traditional practice has been COTT. It is also acknowledged by just about everybody (including popes) that CITH is more susceptible to abuse and that this abuse is an ongoing problem. The current Pope has clearly indicated which method he believes is superior by only allowing COTT at papal Masses.

While it is not a sin to do something that is permitted by the Church, we ought to question ourselves as to why we would choose the less good option. We should give God the best of which we are capable.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church has said CITH is permissible. The Church has not said the two methods are of equal value. One is the norm; the other is an indult. It is clear from what the Church has said which is better.

CITH is conditionally allowed:

(d) Conditions in the indult:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.

My only comment is Why take the risk?

 

[Ockham]

But the Church has said that receiving both ways are valid.

Are you saying that the Church is teaching “Protestant philosophy”?

Regardless of how the indult came to be, it is still acceptable to receive in the hand or on the tongue.

I do not wish to prevent anyone from receiving on the tongue, why does it seem that so many others what to prevent me from receiving in the hand. Or worse yet, call into question whether my “thinking” is truly “Catholic” or some sort of “Protestant justification”?

Research this topic and you should be able to find the answers. The Church doesn’t teach CITH it unfortunately tolerates it. The past forty years of liturgical chaos have featured disobedience and creativity. Thankfully we seem to be returning to our senses.

 

[otjm]

The Church has said CITH is permissible. The Church has not said the two methods are of equal value. One is the norm; the other is an indult. It is clear from what the Church has said which is better. The current norm is and the traditional practice has been COTT. It is also acknowledged by just about everybody (including popes) that CITH is more susceptible to abuse and that this abuse is an ongoing problem. The current Pope has clearly indicated which method he believes is superior by only allowing COTT at papal Masses.

While it is not a sin to do something that is permitted by the Church, we ought to question ourselves as to why we would choose the less good option. We should give God the best of which we are capable.

None of which I have disagreed with, other than that one should not presume to judge those who choose CITH as choosing something that does not give God the best they are capable of. The fact that someone abuses does not imply that others who receive that way also abuse, but the implication tends to be in that direction. And as I noted - it is arguable that is how Christ presented the Eucharist to the Apostles and how they in turn taught; perhaps so and perhaps not and the likelhood of any evidnce answering the question is slim and none. That being said, much of the problem revolves around catechesis, not the actual form of reception. And catechesis is only gradually coming back to where it should be.