M
msugeotech
Guest
Ours as well. (Jackson, MS)
In the Hand...
- Thread starter JonNC
- Start date
- Status
I had not thought of that, as we share the sign of the peace just prior to receiving as well. Would it be anti-liturgcal to share the peace afterwards?Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thanks Teri. I don’t think I’ve seen that quote before.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I cannot remember the exact dates, but the Church banned reception by the hand to prevent abuses caused by the Sacred Body being removed from the Church. She restored the OPTION in order to foster better devotion to the Body of Christ. In my opinion, it has had the opposite effect
T
Tezza
Guest
I wonder what those dates are and the document. Just curious. Either way, it does show it wasn’t a 20th century invention.
I don’t feel it’s my place to say which is better, I leave that to the Church. I did sing a song for choir once entitled “Make Of Our Hands A Throne” based on such writings (above) and thought it was a beautiful sentiment.
That being said, when I went to Mass at St. Peter’s in Rome, they did not allow reception in the hand. The priest actually slapped my brother’s hand away. When in Rome
(which is why I normally receive on the tongue).Peace,
Teri
Wow. I used a lot of winks in that one. I think I have something in my eye
T
Tezza
Guest
F
ferdie
Guest
I think it is sensible and practical. But swine flu or no swine flu, it does not matter for me. For me it’s not how your receive the host, but if you receive it worthily or not.
F
ferdie
Guest
double post
P
Peter_J
Guest
True.I wonder what those dates are and the document. Just curious. Either way, it does show it wasn’t a 20th century invention.
The irony is that when I wrote
I was expecting that someone or other was going to speak up in defense of the third one, e.g “How dare put the beautiful practice of having First Communion at an earlier age than Confirmation, on a par with the horrendous abuse of communion-in-the-hand?!”
(Or words to that effect.
)
T
Tezza
Guest
lol (I wish there was a little laughing guy icon–I just love these thingsI was expecting that someone or other was going to speak up in defense of the third one, e.g “How dare put the beautiful practice of having First Communion at an earlier age than Confirmation, on a par with the horrendus abuse of communion-in-the-hand?!”
(Or words to that effect.
)Having taught Confirmation classes to teens, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have Confirmation at an early age (while they still like Jesus AND their parents). Sorry, not all teens are like that
Don’t some of the eastern rites do a slam dunk–baptism, chrism, and a tiny piece of Eucharist in the mouth as babies? Or is that Orthodox I’m thinkin of? Or maybe I’m totally wrong. I thought I read something once…
Peace in Christ,
Teri
R
ralphinal
Guest
It is the EO that do that. I think all Orthodox do.lol (I wish there was a little laughing guy icon–I just love these things
Having taught Confirmation classes to teens, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have Confirmation at an early age (while they still like Jesus AND their parents). Sorry, not all teens are like that
Don’t some of the eastern rites do a slam dunk–baptism, chrism, and a tiny piece of Eucharist in the mouth as babies? Or is that Orthodox I’m thinkin of? Or maybe I’m totally wrong. I thought I read something once…
Peace in Christ,
Teri
There are valid points on both sides.
T
Tezza
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Both – the Orthodox, and some Eastern Catholics, give all three sacraments together.lol (I wish there was a little laughing guy icon–I just love these things
Having taught Confirmation classes to teens, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have Confirmation at an early age (while they still like Jesus AND their parents). Sorry, not all teens are like that
Don’t some of the eastern rites do a slam dunk–baptism, chrism, and a tiny piece of Eucharist in the mouth as babies? Or is that Orthodox I’m thinkin of? Or maybe I’m totally wrong. I thought I read something once…
Peace in Christ,
Teri
Like ralphinal said, There are valid points on both sides. In the West, it’s traditional for Confirmation/Chrismation to be done by the bishop; so practically speaking it makes sense for infant baptisms to be done by the local priest, and for the Bishop to come around once a year or so and Confirm/Chrismate a group of kids together.
My hope is that the East will stick with it’s tradition, and the West will return to it’s tradition – infant Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismation a few years later (FYI, I don’t consider 14 or 15 to be a “few”
) followed by Holy Communion.P.S. Sorry I’m not consistent with capitalization.
K
kalt
Guest
I think it should be earlier, too. How about 6th grade? 8th graders are more mature, though, and that’s when the Jewish kids are Bar Mitzvahed. Maybe they’ve always been on to something there.lol (I wish there was a little laughing guy icon–I just love these things
Having taught Confirmation classes to teens, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have Confirmation at an early age (while they still like Jesus AND their parents). Sorry, not all teens are like that
Don’t some of the eastern rites do a slam dunk–baptism, chrism, and a tiny piece of Eucharist in the mouth as babies? Or is that Orthodox I’m thinkin of? Or maybe I’m totally wrong. I thought I read something once…
Peace in Christ,
Teri
Confirmations were much earlier a few decades ago. Was it at age 10?
R
ralphinal
Guest
I teach the confirmation class at my parish. Before I started doing so, the age had been moved to 10th grade. It had been 8th before that. Again, there are valid points to both sides.
For the older kids, you can discuss more adult topics that you would avoid with younger ones. It is also easier to impress the gravity of the sacrament.
The younger ones tend to be more receptive and less jaded.
However, in this world in which we live, 6th grade kids are exposed to things that their grandparents never heard about until after graduation.
- Status