How do YOU recieve Communion?

[IesumPerMariam]

Thank you so much for your prayers! I’m, as always, grateful that CAF members guide me toward the right path.

And I know that they do because of what Jesus said about the place for people who provide a stumbling block for those who seek Him.

And I also give thanks for Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Magesterium. Usually, that’s where I go for serious things… but the members on CAF are still valuable(!) so hopefully I haven’t made it seem that I take what you all say with a grain of salt.

If we prefer the authority of the Magisterium, perhaps we should consider the Supreme Magisterial authority, the Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council of Trent declared:
Council of Trent:

Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the Communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical Tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.

 

[grasscutter]

If we prefer the authority of the Magisterium, perhaps we should consider the Supreme Magisterial authority, the Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council of Trent declared:

Thank you so much for offering this wise source! I’m not as learned as you and I was (made quite clear to me) coming from a simple and less educated love for people. Anyway, I’m grateful for the correction. Maybe, I would be of less offense to people if I changed religions?

 

[IesumPerMariam]

Thank you so much for offering this wise source! I’m not as learned as you and I was (made quite clear to me) coming from a simple and less educated love for people. Anyway, I’m grateful for the correction. Maybe, I would be of less offense to people if I changed religions?

Sarcasm really becomes you…

I sure am glad that you are smarter than the millions of poor pathetic Catholics throughout the first 1940 years of the Church, and that you have a more intimate, buddy-buddy relationship with Our Lord than any of them did so that you don’t have to approach Him in fear and trembling as they did.

See, I can be sarcastic too.

This discussion is pointless, and becoming an occasion of sin… Perhaps it’s time for both of us to back away and pray for a bit.

 

[grasscutter]

Sarcasm really becomes you…

I sure am glad that you are smarter than the millions of poor pathetic Catholics throughout the first 1940 years of the Church, and that you have a more intimate, buddy-buddy relationship with Our Lord than any of them did so that you don’t have to approach Him in fear and trembling as they did.

See, I can be sarcastic too.

This discussion is pointless, and becoming an occasion of sin… Perhaps it’s time for both of us to back away and pray for a bit.

I agree that we should back away. I had no idea that you thought I was being sarcastic and I wouldn’t want to be an occasion of sin to you or anyone who was seeking God. You have no idea how much I wish that I could have an intimate friendship with Our Lord. I long and fervently seek it. And, like most everyone else, I also only dare to approach Him with fear and trembling. I guess I wish that when I logged on here I didn’t always feel less holy than everyone else. But that’s my own thing to deal with.

May God bless and keep you, me and all souls.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

For those of you speaking of only receiving from a priest…because his hands are concencrated…what about a deacon?

 

[Kyrie1]

I used to genuflect on a knee than stand and recieve communion on the hands than i began genuflecting and recieving communion on the tongue. Now I kneel to recieve communion. I don’t want to be getting the particles of the blessed sacrament all over a spoon and chips at brunch and i don’t want to be an indult user. i want to be an orthodox universal catholic

 

[aemcpa]

For those of you speaking of only receiving from a priest…because his hands are concencrated…what about a deacon?

One should receive from a priest whenever possible. However, since Church law establishes that a deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, it is required that a deacon administer communion when he is present before any EMHCs are employed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The Sacrament of Holy Communion is less reverent and lax when one receives by an EMHC in a hospital setting?The answer is yes.

Matthew 10:37: “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.”

How about a little ‘unity and solidarity’ with God Himself?

Say what??? For all those poor people in the hospital and in nursing homes…Holy Communion is less reverent and more lax because they receive from an EHMC??? Say what??? Did I read that right???

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

One should receive from a priest whenever possible. However, since Church law establishes that a deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion, it is required that a deacon administer communion when he is present before any EMHCs are employed.

Ya…I know…question is do you know…because his hands are not concecrated…

Funny…no where do I read that the church directs us to receive from a priest whenever possible.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

For those of you speaking of only receiving from a priest…because his hands are concencrated…what about a deacon?

Strictly speaking, the only men whose hands have been consecrated, and who traditionally were the only ones to distribute Holy Communion within the Mass, were the priests.

Historically, the Church has always allowed more relaxed standards on clerics distributing Communion outside of Mass, when the distribution is not immediately connected with the actual Consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. For example, St Tarcisius was an Acolyte in the 3rd century who was martyred while taking the Eucharist to imprisoned Christians.

At the Mass I attend, the issue has never come up, as the rubrics would not allow a deacon to distribute Communion unless the priest were physically unable to. So, I’ve never really thought about it.

 

[aemcpa]

Ya…I know…question is do you know…because his hands are not concecrated…

Funny…no where do I read that the church directs us to receive from a priest whenever possible.

A priest is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion by the nature of his office. A deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion merely by virtue of the law. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a deacon was NOT an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. And every document which refers to the indult allowing the use of EMHCs states that it is preferable never to use them.

 

[aussiemel]

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

My answer also and I don’t mind from a EMHC as I am one myself

 

[IesumPerMariam]

Ya…I know…question is do you know…because his hands are not concecrated…

Funny…no where do I read that the church directs us to receive from a priest whenever possible.

Except in the Ecumenical Council of Trent:
Council of Trent:

Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the Communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical Tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.

And Bl John Paul II:
Dominicae Cenae:

But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them.

And St Thomas Aquinas:
STh:

The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because He consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

And the Local Council of Rouen:

Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A priest is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion by the nature of his office. A deacon is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion merely by virtue of the law. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a deacon was NOT an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. And every document which refers to the indult allowing the use of EMHCs states that it is preferable never to use them.

Are we in 1917?

I’m curious…if it is preferable to never use EMHC…then why do you not do to a deacon?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Except in the Ecumenical Council of Trent:

And Bl John Paul II:

And St Thomas Aquinas:

And the Local Council of Rouen:

First of all that is a whole lot of quotes…but quotes without context means nothing.

Second of all…from your last quote…so you are saying that the Church who allowed Communion in the Hand got it wrong? That we can’t trust the Church in that?

Thirdly…you receive as you see fit…(perhaps you didn’t see my response to the person who wanted to receive on the tongue but didn’t want to stand out…where I told her receive as her heart tells her) …but kindly stop looking down your nose at those of us who receive differently as long as it is within what the church allows. I hardly think the Lord would be pleased at all this…

 

[IesumPerMariam]

First of all that is a whole lot of quotes…but quotes without context means nothing.

Second of all…from your last quote…so you are saying that the Church who allowed Communion in the Hand got it wrong? That we can’t trust the Church in that?

Thirdly…you receive as you see fit…(perhaps you didn’t see my response to the person who wanted to receive on the tongue but didn’t want to stand out…where I told her receive as her heart tells her) …but kindly stop looking down your nose at those of us who receive differently as long as it is within what the church allows. I hardly think the Lord would be pleased at all this…

You asked questions. I answered them. How that qualifies as “looking down my nose” I cannot understand.

And I do not trust my own opinions, which are worthless. I only adhere to what those far more intelligent and far more holy than me have taught for millenia.

As far as what the Lord would be pleased with, I will quote the holiest American theologian of the 20th Century, the Servant of God Fr John Hardon: "Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

 

[iheartdance]

Does EMHC mean “En my hand communion”?

 

[aemcpa]

Are we in 1917?

I’m curious…if it is preferable to never use EMHC…then why do you not do to a deacon?

I trust you are confused rather than being obtuse. The reference to 1917 was in support of my distinction between priests and deacons, showing that deacons are not inherently possessed of the right to distribute Communions as priests are.

It is always preferable to receive from a priest, and there is always a priest at Mass.

 

[aemcpa]

Does EMHC mean “En my hand communion”?

It stands for Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

 

[aemcpa]

First of all that is a whole lot of quotes…but quotes without context means nothing.

Second of all…from your last quote…so you are saying that the Church who allowed Communion in the Hand got it wrong? That we can’t trust the Church in that?

Thirdly…you receive as you see fit…(perhaps you didn’t see my response to the person who wanted to receive on the tongue but didn’t want to stand out…where I told her receive as her heart tells her) …but kindly stop looking down your nose at those of us who receive differently as long as it is within what the church allows. I hardly think the Lord would be pleased at all this…

The Church’s infallibility does not extend to pastoral applications or disciplines.