How do YOU recieve Communion?

[agnes_therese]

You don’t know what instruction on reverence in receiving the Lord in Holy Communion has to do with First Holy Communion?

Wow, insult strangers much?

The post you responded to didn’t say they don’t have instruction. In fact, there was no mention of First Communion at all. The post DID say “In the area of Church disciplines we just do what is well and good and accepted.” AND that parishioners there receive in the hand or on the tongue, as they prefer. Which is allowed by the Church.

You are perfectly free to disagree with the Bishops’ decision on communion in the hand, and with our Pope Emeritus who said is it valid. But you have NO right to tell those who do follow Church teaching that they are wrong to do so.

 

[Brendan]

Not in the United States.

U.S. Norm

The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

-Tim-

FYI, GIRM 160 was revised and put into effect at the same time as the new translated Missal. It was revised to put it more fully into compliance with directives from the CDWDS and Redemptions Sacramentum.

GIRM 160 now reads

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

 

[Greg_N]

Tongue.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Pastors that catechize their flock regarding communion on the tongue vs. on the hand also tend to use fewer extraordinary ministers because, you know, it’s supposed to be out of the ordinary.

So following this logic then, why do so many people want the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to be celebrated more frequently, is is after all, ya know, supposed to be out of the ordinary?

 

[tafan]

In the hand like the Twelve Apostles during the Last Supper and the first eight centuries of the Mass.

Well, you were not there during the last supper?

As to the first eight centuries, that is a historical fabrication based on two pieces of evidence (a text of St Cyril of Jeruselem in the 4th century and the Synod of Rouen, France, in about 878 which forbid communion in the hand by the laity.

A more complete historical picture shows the following:

The sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom whereby only the
priest-celebrant gives Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the
laity receive It from him, is an Apostolic tradition. (1)
A more rigorous study of available evidence from Church history and
from writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion
in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and
eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue. Rather,
facts seem to point to a different conclusion: Pope St. Leo the Great
(440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments
on the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel he speaks of Communion in the
mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by
faith." (2) The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but
as if this were a well established thing.
A century and a half later Pope St. Gregory the Great (died in 604) is
another witness. In his dialogues he relates how Pope St. Agapitus performed
a miracle during Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into
someone’s mouth.

…

St. Basil the Great (330-379) indicates that reception of Communion by one’s
own hand was permitted precisely because of persecution, or, as was the case
with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It. (3)
In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologiae
Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D.
served toward bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end.
After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the
hand persisted here and there. Church authority apparently judged that it
invited abuse and deemed it contrary to the custom of the Apostles.

Taken from franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

You certainly have the right under current Church law to receive communion in the hand, but please to not misrepresent history so poorly

 

[roadsend]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aemcpa
“Pastors that catechize their flock regarding communion on the tongue vs. on the hand also tend to use fewer extraordinary ministers because, you know, it’s supposed to be out of the ordinary.”

So following this logic then, why do so many people want the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to be celebrated more frequently, is is after all, ya know, supposed to be out of the ordinary?

If the Extraordinary Form of the Mass were one tenth as common as
Extraordinary ministers, I doubt that you would hear any gripes from the Traddies.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

In the hand and I bow before receiving Our Lord, and I don’t mind receiving from an EMHC.

Me too.

 

[mikeeh]

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

I read that source too. Sounds like they’re really stretching facts. As I said before I got the information from the Catholic Book of Facts by Bart Tesoriero, Aquinas Press 2008.

Here’s a few more sources:
vatican.va/news_services/…munion_en.html
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[Nicea325]

Kneeling, on the tongue, and from clergy only - not from an EMHC.

Why? It has been consecrated.

 

[aemcpa]

Why? It has been consecrated.

Why receive from an EMHC when a priest is present?

 

[Cojuanco]

Just wondering…

In the tongue. I know it is allowed to take it in the hand, but I’m just more comfortable doing it the old way, as it’s how my parents and my Catholic educators (I attended Catholic elementary school) taught me. This is in the Ordinary Form, of course.

 

[Nicea325]

Why receive from an EMHC when a priest is present?

Again…why? Has it not been consecrated? Don’t priest hand-out the pyx to lay folks?

 

[IesumPerMariam]

Again…why? Has it not been consecrated? Don’t priest hand-out the pyx to lay folks?

Because the priest’s hands were consecrated with sacred chrism at his ordination, specifically for the purpose of handling the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Greg_N]

Why? It has been consecrated.

How would you like your beer; off tap in a frosted glass, or in a can?

 

[aemcpa]

Again…why? Has it not been consecrated? Don’t priest hand-out the pyx to lay folks?

He does, in order to take communion to places where he cannot be present. The priest is my spiritual father and is standing in the person of Christ. The EMHC is not. It is a blessing that more people are able to partake of the Sacrament because of the work of EMHCs, but it should be clear to any Catholic (as it is the clear teaching of the Church) that the faithful should receive from the priest whenever possible.

 

[Greg_N]

He does, in order to take communion to places where he cannot be present. The priest is my spiritual father and is standing in the person of Christ. The EMHC is not. It is a blessing that more people are able to partake of the Sacrament because of the work of EMHCs, but it should be clear to any Catholic (as it is the clear teaching of the Church) that the faithful should receive from the priest whenever possible.

nailed it

 

[grasscutter]

Again…why? Has it not been consecrated? Don’t priest hand-out the pyx to lay folks?

That’s something that I’ve been wondering reading this thread. Based on the logic of receiving kneeling, on the tongue, from a priest seems to make it seem that the people who are home-bound or in nursing homes/hospitals that EHMC’s are nice enough to visit are getting a lesser version of the Sacrament. Almost as good, but not quite.

I don’t know, but maybe it would be a gesture of humility (that virtue!) if people who felt so strongly about COTT from a priest only would make a deliberate choice to receive in the hand by an EHMC as a sacrifice and prayer for the people who cannot physically be present at Mass.

 

[Nicea325]

How would you like your beer; off tap in a frosted glass, or in a can?

Sorry, I do not drink.

 

[aemcpa]

That’s something that I’ve been wondering reading this thread. Based on the logic of receiving kneeling, on the tongue, from a priest seems to make it seem that the people who are home-bound or in nursing homes/hospitals that EHMC’s are nice enough to visit are getting a lesser version of the Sacrament. Almost as good, but not quite.

I don’t know, but maybe it would be a gesture of humility (that virtue!) if people who felt so strongly about COTT from a priest only would make a deliberate choice to receive in the hand by an EHMC as a sacrifice and prayer for the people who cannot physically be present at Mass.

That would be false humility. True humility is to recognize the truth about oneself and act accordingly. And therefore, in humility, one should do as much as one can to give homage to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

On what basis do you presume that those who are not present at Mass and must receive Communion from an EMHC outside of Mass do so on the hand?

 

[aemcpa]

Sorry, I do not drink.

Cue the Protestant double entendre.