If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?

[Brendan]

The debate about whether the rule must be followed requires the context of assumed greater risk with COTT otherwise, if there is no Greater risk, of course the rule is to be followed. And there would be no debate. Are you being intentionally obtuse Brendan?

The rule MIGHT be followed, if that is what the person chooses to do.

I have zero problems with the bishops petitioning Rome for clarification or a dispensation. Such a request could have easily been transmitted to Rome, and Rome could have published the clarification so that all could see.

The could have also put in a good faith rule in place, until Rome responded to their query.

Outside of that, the bishop simply did not have the authority to change the rule, nor more so that you or I.

 

[Brendan]

As I said before, when the pandemic is over, everyone can go back to receiving as they wish. This is not a permanent change. PLEASE just do as your priest or bishop requests. They love you and care for you.

Deacon, I have no issues with recieving CITH, I have done so, and it is simply easier to sit in our ‘normal’ spot at Mass, than to move into the section reserved for those who desire COTT.

That is the protocol defined by my Archbishop, who gratefully, recognized the rules that Rome had put in place, and provided clear and safe protocols for the distribution of Holy Communion in both modes.

What I am asking for other bishops to do the same. It would be very dishearting for a bishop to expect obedience from others, when he himself does not offer obedience, or defer when Rome has given specific authority to others.

 

[Montrose]

From a Catholic Answers article:

Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” (Catechetical Lectures 23:22).

 

[felsguy]

A week ago the OP asked “If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?” It strikes me that there are only two possible answers, A: receive in the hand or B: don’t receive (and by the way, he goes on to say that he chooses A.) Somewhere along the line the thread devolved into a discussion of whether or not the bishop(s) have the authority to limit reception to CITH due to the pandemic.

So my response to the original question? Let me just say that if I learned that the only to receive the Eucharist next Sunday was by standing on my head then I’m going to get busy now practicing how to do that.

 

[Brendan_64]

Where in the words do you get the sense that “take this” implied something unusual like COTT?

“Take this” does not necessarily mean taking in one’s hands. Scripture does not say that Communion at the Last Supper was taken in the hands.

There is also the account of the visions of Blessed Anne Emmerich where, I seem to recall reading, Communion at the Last Supper was seen to be on the tongue.

I am not saying that these visions represent definitive proof, although I think I personally do accept them.

The words “Take this” cannot, I think, be viewed as evidence from scripture of Communion at the Last Supper being definitively given in the hand.

There is also the issue of translation from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, and then to English. Therefore we cannot simply presume that the word spoken actually meant to reach out and pick something up. Indeed when we receive Communion, whether on the tongue or in the hand, we do not ‘take’ Communion, we receive Communion. For the laity to actually reach out and ‘take’ Communion is, as I understand it, a liturgical abuse.

I think the argument that Communion at the Last Supper was clearly in the hand, is a very weak argument based on little more than an assumption.

There is I also I believe the point made by an earlier poster that the twelve were bishops of the Church, they were not lay-people.

 

[Diaconia]

There is I also I believe the point made by an earlier poster that the twelve were bishops of the Church, they were not lay-people.

They were Apostles, not bishops. The office of Apostle is far greater than that of bishop. Bishops are successors to Apostles, not the equivalent of.

Private devotions have no weight in matters like these.

The likelihood that Jesus put bread into their mouths is incredibly small. That is not how Passover is celebrated. The unleavened bread is broken and passed around. Most likely there were multiple loaves of it. If our Lord would have gotten up and walked to each of them and fed them it would have been a detail so different and unique that certainly at least one of the Evangelists would have noted it. Remember, two of them were eyewitnesses.

The bread He used was something closer to pita today, or lavosh - certainly nothing like the wafer hosts that are common today. Both kinds of bread leave lots of crumbs and particles.

Applying current methods of distribution, and current communion host recipes are not indicative of what happened at the Last Supper.

Deacon Christopher

 

[stpurl]

Deacon Christopher, I have a question though.

Since COTT is the universal Norm in the Church and has been for centuries, having by all accounts either existed with CITH for some period or having been developed, others say, when abuses with CITH became widespread, and since there was never any ‘outcry’ from the US to have this; it was simply ‘requested’ by some US bishops at a time when other countries in Europe were asking for it, as if this was some new wave and we in the US needed to ‘get on board’. . .
And since over the last 40 some years virtually every country in which this practice came into play has seen a huge decline in Mass attendance and a huge drop in understanding of the Real Presence, along with many public and verified instances where the Eucharist has been replaced with invalid substances, where the Eucharist is not ‘respected’ and is given the same kind of treatment as one would a semi-favorite or ‘accustomed’ snack food, etc. . .

Can one really say that despite a small number of people claiming that this way is ‘best for them’, or has some kind of emotional impact, that the problems are ‘outweighed’ by the benefits?

Isn’t it precisely the other way round?

Further, while there is an Element of a sacrificial meal in the Mass, as this relates to the sacrificial meals of the Jewish people and in relation to Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross as the Lamb of God, the main ‘thrust’ of the Mass is not a recreation of the Last Supper. . .the main ‘thrust’ is that in the Mass we ourselves are able to join in Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself as the Lamb. It is Calvary that is present in the Mass. So trying to focus on “meal” I think pushes that element of sacrifice to the side, such that most people today literally have no idea that the Mass is a Sacrifice.

 

[Rau]

And since over the last 40 some years virtually every country in which this practice came into play has seen a huge decline in Mass attendance

Is this another condemnation of the Pope and Bishops for introducing CITH? Are you asserting cause and effect? Does CITH cause huge declines in mass attendance?

 

[stpurl]

You ‘chopped’ one sentence.
There are, of course, many factors in the decline in Mass attendance.

Please, though, consider all the rest of what I said.

Has there been an increase in faith, knowledge, and practice over the last 50 years, or has there not?

If not, especially regarding knowledge (and as shown by the Pew Study whereby close to 3/4 of Catholics do not believe in the Real presence, as opposed to over 90% who believed in the 1950s and prior), then what major factors have contributed to a lack of understanding of the Real Presence? What is most strikingly ‘different’ in how we receive, and what is most strikingly corresponding to the way Protestants receive their communion?

 

[Rau]

There are, of course, many factors in the decline in Mass attendance.

Correct you are.

 

[Rau]

what major factors have contributed to a lack of understanding of the Real Presence?

Understanding, or belief? Who claims to actually understand this mystery?

The causes of this lack of belief may be the same unknown factors that contribute to declining mass attendance. Or the same factors contributing to the acceptance of sexual freedoms prevalent today.

 

[stpurl]

If one takes into consideration the variety of factors that played into the overall decline in Mass attendance, those factors added together equal a particular ‘attitude’. You don’t usually get a group of wildly dissimilar actions or non-actions that together create a ‘whole scale exodus’ of ‘patrons’. What tends to cause people to ‘leave’ a faith is more like an incident that is piled onto a similar incident but more ‘severe, piled onto another similar but even MORE severe, until one gets to the straw which breaks the camel’s back.

If, for example, I was in charge of a reading group which had been successful for a few generations in my town, and if I carefully surveyed the participants, their reading patterns, their personal needs and desires, and found that the majority of them wished to center their discussions around classic women’s fiction and also around parenting. . .and as the new leader I went out and started off the first meeting with a discussion of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and followed it with a meeting about the phenomenon of DINKs in society, I would expect a few raised eyebrows and some dissatisfaction. If the next year I started off the first meeting with discussions of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, and followed it with a discussion about Fast Food Nation (all the above, you see, because they fit in my narrative of what people ‘should be discussing’ everywhere), I shouldn’t be surprised if several women left the group (and if my superiors didn’t hear that I was not addressing my groups’ needs).
But what if my superior, like me, believed that the subjects I wanted to introduce were indeed FAR MORE IMPORTANT and indeed absolutely critical to the knowledge of these women. That if these women didn’t know these ‘fundamental things’ they had no business with the topics they had been discussing. That the other issues regarding women’s fiction, no matter how well researched and built upon over decades, was simply ‘no longer necessary’.

Well, there you have it. Now, over the course of time, while the majority of the women left the group, a few women (and some men, who were admitted because the original group had been deemed ‘sexist) came in. And they came in and stayed in because they either were interested in the topic, or were shamed into feeling that they SHOULD be interested in the topic, and over the years they forgot completely about the original group and when reminded, felt embarrassed that they had ever been so sexist and provincial about wanting to pursue those things.

Were there several factors involved the major ‘exodus’ of the original woman’s group? Sure. They did not receive the discussions that they desired, and their discussions were first ignored and then slammed and mocked.

The overwhelming ‘cause’ was the stunning lack of concern from the leaders over what the people themselves desired, and the forcing of an alternate ‘view’ by means of ‘authoritarianism’ and shaming and indoctrination.

But the main ‘difference’-format of the group remained the same, with discussion of literature—was the substitution of one TYPE of literature for the other.