If you partake Communion COT, why do you do this?

[At_Trent]

Does this mean you will not receive communion from a Deacon?

No

As far as your other question, I doubt I’d receive from EMHC’s on a regular basis. But I have and I would. I don’t receive every time I go to Mass anyway.

 

[At_Trent]

This is a Roman Catholic topic and it’s obvious we are talking Latin Rite here.

Are you serious?

Yes, I’m serious. Eastern Churches can do as they please. I have no issue with their traditions. If I have questions about them or want to discuss them I’ll see you on Eastern.

hago

 

[silicasandra]

Like Cat, receiving COT is a matter of practicality for me. I’m usually holding a baby during Communion.

And if I’m not, then I can avoid busting out the hand sanitizer after the Sign of Peace and getting dirty looks from the people around me. Then I can just wash my hands after Mass. With a LO and having been a teacher I’ve become a bit of a germaphobe.

 

[At_Trent]

Such is not a teaching in the Roman Catholic Church. We in America can receive in the hand, and EMHCs can distribute the Blessed Sacrament.

That aside, I don’t particularly care about how I receive; I am more concerned about **what **I receive. I “get” the reasons why some prefer COTH, but personally, I couldn’t care much less about how I recieve.

Indults are not teachings.

 

[ElToro]

Indults are not teachings.

Nor are fabrications like:

I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

I have not seen a Church document stating this teaching has been reversed.

 

[ElToro]

Yes, I’m serious. Eastern Churches can do as they please. I have no issue with their traditions. If I have questions about them or want to discuss them I’ll see you on Eastern.

hago

This forum is not limited to the Liturgy and Sacraments of the Latin Rite of the Church. The Eastern example does show the absurdity of your claim.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

This is a Roman Catholic topic and it’s obvious we are talking Latin Rite here.

Greetings At Trent and those who are posting and or reading this thread,

Yes this is a Roman Catholic Topic and I am wishing for the Latin Rite to be considered. I probably pulled this thread off-topic by asking El Toro for his sources. For now, can we please keep the Eastern Rites out of this discussion?

My apologies for pulling the thread off topic.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[TimothyH]

Why I recieve the way I do isn’t anyone’s business.

Just felt like saying that.

-Tim-

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Does this mean you will not receive communion from a Deacon?

No

What about if you end up in a care facility and the only way you could receive with any regularity is from an EMHC. (I work in such a facility- we have not had a priest come to say Mass for almost a year! )
I know these questions really don’t have anything to do with the OP, but you opened the door with your reply saying you will only receive from “consecrated hands”. I am not trying to start and agrument, I sincerely would like to know, would you really forgo receiving the Eucharist if you could not receive from a priest?

As far as your other question, I doubt I’d receive from EMHC’s on a regular basis. But I have and I would. I don’t receive every time I go to Mass anyway.

Ok, now I am even more confused.
You will not receive communion from a Deacon, an Ordinary Minister, but you will from an EMHC?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand this. I run into this attitude quite a bit in the “traditional circles” in my dioceses as well as here at CAF, and it baffles me.

And I really don’t want to argue the ins & outs of how & why CITH is allowed. It is, and you or I are not going to change that fact.
And, the only 4 people who could have changed this fact, have not, so that tells me that the method that one choices to receive communion is not a as much of a priority to them as it is to many here on CAF.

 

[Ter1]

Ok, now I am even more confused.
You will not receive communion from a Deacon, an Ordinary Minister, but you will from an EMHC?

I think its the various negatives that are confusing people i.e. No, he wouldn’t not receive from a Deacon = he would receive from a Deacon. Isn’t grammar fun.

 

[At_Trent]

Ok, now I am even more confused.
You will not receive communion from a Deacon,

You asked if it meant I will not receive from a deacon. My answer is no, that is not what it means.


I can find pages writings that explain why the Church taught why only consecrated vessels and hands come in contact with the Blessed Sacrament.

But those saying that the Church does not teach this can’t do so without providing something to the contrary. I think everyone is ignoring that fact because they can’t provide such.

Anyhow, here is an article if anyone is interested

**“Out of Reverence for this Sacrament,
nothing Touches It but what is Consecrated” - Saint Thomas Aquinas

by John Vennari

“Our Fathers Have Told Us!”

Throughout the centuries, our fathers have told us about our Faith and about the Blessed Sacrament. Our fathers have told us that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Fathers of the Council of Trent defined the Blessed Sacrament with precision and care. Father Thomas Aquinas taught us that out of reverence toward this Sacrament, the touching and administrating of this Sacrament belong only to the priest. Our Catholic fathers at home, as well as our teaching sisters in school, told us that it was sacrilegious for anyone but the priest to touch the sacred host.

Throughout the centuries, the Popes, bishops and priests taught us this same thing, not so much by words, but by example — and especially by the celebration of the Old Latin Mass, where profound reverence for the Blessed Sacrament as the true Body of Christ was in every move the priest made. Our fathers told us these things not just for the sake of handing down a venerable but groundless tradition, they have told us these things through word and ex-ample to show fidelity to the Catholic Faith and reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament. Our fathers told us this because it was the truth.

But the introduction of Communion in the hand and lay ministers of the Eucharist shows an arrogant disregard for what our fathers taught us. And though these practices have been introduced under the guise of being an “authentic” liturgical development mandated by Vatican II, the truth is Communion in the hand is not an authentic liturgical development, was not mandated by the Second Vatican Council, and shows complete defiance and contempt for centuries of Catholic teaching and practice before us, thus resembling the philosophy of the New Paganism and the philosophy of revolution.

Nowhere Mentioned in Vatican II

Communion in the hand is not mentioned in a single document of the Second Vatican Council, nor was it mentioned during any of the debates during the Council. In all sixteen documents of Vatican II, there is no mention of Communion in the hand.

The teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his great Summa Theologica bears this out. He explains:

“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 (Last) Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of bythem. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ?s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.

“Second, 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.

“Third, because out of reverence for 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 else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.” (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)

Saint Thomas, who is the prince of theologians in the Catholic Church, who towers above all the rest, whose Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Scriptures during the Council of Trent, and whose teaching Saint Pius X said was the remedy for Modernism … Saint Thomas clearly teaches that it belongs to the priest and only to the priest to touch and administer the Sacred Host, that “only that which is consecrated” (the hands of the priest) “should touch the Consecrated” (the Sacred Host).

Bibliography

Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds - Michael Davies
Documents of Vatican II - Abbot Edition
Dominicae Cenae - Pope John Paul II - 2/24/80
The Great Heresies - Hilaire Belloc
Immensae Caritatis - Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship - 1/29/73
The Last Roman Catholic? - James W. Demers
Memoriale Domini - Pope Paul VI - 5/29/69
Pope John?s Council - Michael Davies
Preaching and Teaching about the Eucharist - Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin
Privilege of the Ordained - Michael Davies
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - Ralph Wiltgen
Summa Theologica - Saint Thomas Aquinas **

And more here
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comunion.htm

 

[At_Trent]

Greetings At Trent and those who are posting and or reading this thread,

Yes this is a Roman Catholic Topic and I am wishing for the Latin Rite to be considered. I probably pulled this thread off-topic by asking El Toro for his sources. For now, can we please keep the Eastern Rites out of this discussion?

My apologies for pulling the thread off topic.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

No big deal.

 

[At_Trent]

I think its the various negatives that are confusing people i.e. No, he wouldn’t not receive from a Deacon = he would receive from a Deacon. Isn’t grammar fun.

lol, something like that.

 

[Newbie2]

Indults are not teachings.

Right. But I was responding to the claim:

“I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.”

IF this were the teaching, EMHCs would not be allowed, we would not be ablet to receive CITH.

I would question, IF only consecrated hands can touch the hosts, why does the same not apply to consecrated tongues? We sin as much with our tongues as with our hands.

The claim is simply false.

 

[At_Trent]

Right. But I was responding to the claim:

“I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.”

IF this were the teaching, EMHCs would not be allowed, we would not be ablet to receive CITH.

I would question, IF only consecrated hands can touch the hosts, why does the same not apply to consecrated tongues? We sin as much with our tongues as with our hands.

The claim is simply false.

Sorry, but no one on this forum can claim this statement is wrong with anything to back it up.

“I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.”

The Church has indeed taught this for centuries and you can’t provide a single Church document or writing by a Doctor of the Church that states otherwise. Not one.

Again, an indult doesn’t cut it.

 

[Newbie2]

Sorry, but no one on this forum can claim this statement is wrong with anything to back it up.

“I receive on the tongue because the Church has taught that only consecrated hands are to touch the Blessed Sacrament.”

The Church has indeed taught this for centuries and you can’t provide a single Church document or writing by a Doctor of the Church that states otherwise. Not one.

Again, an indult doesn’t cut it.

If it’s not allowed, it’s not allowed. Let’s see a document that says it’s forbidden. If there is a teaching to that effect, show us. ***You’re the one claiming that the Church teaches as such; you’re the one making the claim…let’s see you back up your statement. ***

*SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. *

Took me abou t5 seconds to google it.

Do you deny that EMHCs are allowed to touch the Eucharist?

I fail to understand what part of “It’s allowed; hence it’s not forbidden.” you don’t understand.

Please explain how the Church can allow CITH and EMHCs if what you claim is true.

 

[turtle18]

I normally receive Communion on the tongue but I will receive in the hand if I am or sick or I think the priest is too unsteady to give on the tongue.

 

[maryjk]

I started receiving on the tongue when I started receiving the low gluten host. At the time, I was receiving just a piece of it. It was very crumbly. (Think rice cracker) I didn’t want to have some of it left on my hand.

Now I generally receive a whole piece, so it wouldn’t matter if I want back to receiving in the hand. But once in a while I receive a piece and I don’t want to be one that goes back and forth.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings to all posting in this thread,

I opened this thread only to find out why people were receiving COT if they did. At Trent has answered my question quite satisfactorily, I would out of deepest respect ask other posters to refrain from bringing in doctrine or challenging At Trent for what they are deciding to do or not do to do.

Perhaps Newbie2 I would ask you to continue the discussion outside of this thread, as I am desirious that this thread not address what you are discussing. Out of common courtesy if one wishes to challenge whether it is doctrinally correct or not to receive in a particular manner, please start another thread.

I would like to keep this topic open and one where dialogue can be interchanged without others coming down on others because they choose to do something different.

Again to bring this thread back on topic. IF you receive Communion COT why do you do so? Please leave all arguing and criticism out of this thread as I am not interested in it.

Thank you.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[centurionguard]

If it’s not allowed, it’s not allowed. Let’s see a document that says it’s forbidden. If there is a teaching to that effect, show us. ***You’re the one claiming that the Church teaches as such; you’re the one making the claim…let’s see you back up your statement. ***

*SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. *

Took me abou t5 seconds to google it.

Do you deny that ETHICs are allowed to touch the Eucharist?

I fail to understand what part of “It’s allowed; hence it’s not forbidden.” you don’t understand.

Please explain how the Church can allow CITH and EMHCs if what you claim is true.

It is exactly one such issue as spoken here amongst others that divides Conservative and Liberal Catholics alike.

I do remember a time when far much more respect was owed to the Sacred Consecrated Host whereby Communion Paten’s were used by altar boys serving alongside priests so as to stop unseen consecrated crumbs from the host from falling unto the floor. Seems in many Catholic Parishes on an International level is means very little. Oh well guess nobody wants to think or even venture to believe in unseen consecrate crumbs from the hosts anymore. Few Catholic Churches today even use a communion Paten. Guess its just an old outdated superficial custom of bygone years that once had meaning to some. And what of the Consecrated Hands of a respected Priest? Has that not lost some significance over the years. Looking back to the time of Moses and the Ark of the Covenant and only few priest were allowed to have access of touching the Sacred Tablets. The Sacred Hosts in the Chalice are the New ark of the Covenant. The word Sacred is sometimes undermined.