Lay Eucharistic Ministers

[BigFeet]

The legitimate authority of the Church says that Communion in the hand is okay.

And the Bible (Word of God) tells us that “at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend”. Take note here…that’s at the mere mention of His name. How much more should we show our reverence when we’re in His True Presence? And yet the “legitimate” authority here in the U.S. has declared that we should merely nod our head at Him before we receive Him while standing, and then have the option to have Him plopped onto our grubby mitts.

Last year, I was commanded by a priest to never again genuflect in HIS church before I received Holy Communion (something which the Holy See allows, along with kneeling while receiving). My choices were to either get down on my knees before God, or to bow to this man and his “legitimate authority” as a shepherd of the Church. Out of obedience, my family and I had to leave that parish where I was also the middle school science teacher, the director of the youth choir, a catechism teacher, and a cantor.

And you talk about “legitimate authority”? Don’t kid yourself. We’ll still be held accountable, no matter what man commands us to ignore the Word of God.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

And you talk about “legitimate authority”? Don’t kid yourself. We’ll still be held accountable, no matter what man commands us to ignore the Word of God.

Careful! This is the sort of argument people use against the Catholic Church all the time. “I don’t need a priest to tell me I’m forgiven! God is my confessor.” “I don’t have to abstain from meat on Fridays. That’s man’s law, not God’s.” “I don’t follow a priest, a bishop, or a pope. I follow God.”

Guess what? Jesus gave authority to the apostles and their successors to run the church. When we practice true obedience, it is not only to God, but to the people He has chosen to guide us. Some do sin or make mistakes because they’re human just like the rest of us. But that doesn’t mean we brush off all their authority. None of the apostles were perfect, even after meeting Jesus, and He still chose them to lead His people. Peter denied Christ and we still call him a saint and read his writings and follow his teaching.

Receiving Communion in the hand isn’t ignoring the word of God. See the earlier scripture quote of Jesus reminding people that the Sabboth was made for man, not man for the Sabboth.

 

[LilyM]

Careful! This is the sort of argument people use against the Catholic Church all the time. “I don’t need a priest to tell me I’m forgiven! God is my confessor.” “I don’t have to abstain from meat on Fridays. That’s man’s law, not God’s.” “I don’t follow a priest, a bishop, or a pope. I follow God.”

Guess what? Jesus gave authority to the apostles and their successors to run the church. When we practice true obedience, it is not only to God, but to the people He has chosen to guide us. Some do sin or make mistakes because they’re human just like the rest of us. But that doesn’t mean we brush off all their authority. None of the apostles were perfect, even after meeting Jesus, and He still chose them to lead His people. Peter denied Christ and we still call him a saint and read his writings and follow his teaching.

Receiving Communion in the hand isn’t ignoring the word of God. See the earlier scripture quote of Jesus reminding people that the Sabboth was made for man, not man for the Sabboth.

Jesus even told His apostles to obey His bitterest enemies, the Pharisees - purely because ‘they sit in the seat of Moses’ (in the place of authority).

He even expicitly warned the Apostles NOT to follow the poor personal example these men gave, so He knew what poor leaders they were.

He did not say, however, that they ever taught wrongly. No God-protected religious authority teaches wrongly. What he criticised them for was simply that they did not practice what they taught.

So, if our God-given Magisterium - and from the Pope on down they’ve personally given plenty of people Communion in the hand, teaches that it is OK to receive in the hand, who are you to presume to know better than they?

 

[DJim]

I can’t help but ask how we can change a standard that is so important. Even touching the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament caused that poor soul to be “struck dead”. We have here something much more than that, We have the Body and Blood of Christ. So, I can’t help but consider and pray and ask for an improvement in this standard.
Just as a side note, there is nothing I say here that I would not personally say to the pope or any bishop in person. I have my own faults to work on and sure, the powers that be may not care what I have to say, but I believe these are issues that must be addressed and they are the cause of so much confusion.

God condescended to become “flesh” for a reason–the Incarnation was not some abstract accident, but was an intentional expression of how God wants to relate to us.

Do you think the children blessed by Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (“let the children come to me; do not hinder them…”) were in danger of falling down dead because they touched and were touched by Jesus?

Was Thomas profaning Jesus’ risen Body by touching His glorified wounds?

The “Ark” analogy doesn’t work for the Incarnational Jesus Christ (Mary is our “Ark” anyway…). Eucharist, like all Sacraments, is intentionally “sense-ible”–we can touch it. We can do so reverently on the tongue or in the hand.

Elevating personal preference to some sort of unreasonable absolute position simply shows disrespect for the Bride and the Bridegroom, not to mention disrespect for all who are quite capable of reverently receiving in the hand.

But, hey, if someone feels they personally are incapable of receiving reverently in the hand, then by all means they should limit themselves to receiving on the tongue…

DJim

 

[DJim]

And the Bible (Word of God) tells us that “at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend”. Take note here…that’s at the mere mention of His name. How much more should we show our reverence when we’re in His True Presence? And yet the “legitimate” authority here in the U.S. has declared that we should merely nod our head at Him before we receive Him while standing, and then have the option to have Him plopped onto our grubby mitts.

 

[mtr01]

This thread reminded me of an article I came across a little while ago in an unrelated search. It seems pretty relevant here:

***1) “Traditionalists criticize the Church leaders, particularly the Pope. These criticisms show disloyalty and are only to be done by qualified theologians in rare circumstances.”

***This objection comes from an assumption as to the root motivation of the criticisms. A criticism in itself is not a bad thing but it can be, depending on its nature and intent. For instance, a criticism made out of malice or done in a disrespectful manner becomes an attack or insult. Unfortunately, “conservatives” seem to be taking issue with any criticism or disagreement on non-doctrinal matters, regardless of the nature or presumed intent. To them, the very act of criticism itself seems to indicate a lack of loyalty or obedience. This was not the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas.
*“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”*1
Why would traditionalists waste so much time discussing Papal actions out of simple malice towards the Supreme Pontiff? Traditionalists are Catholics who are very concerned about the state of the Church and are forced, out of charity, to make those concerns known. There should be no doubt that those who offer proper criticism show an even deeper love than those who remain in unquestioning silence.

If someone were to write a letter to President Bush, criticizing his decision to allow experimentation on stem cells from human embryos, would the author be seen as disloyal to his country? It should be clear that he cares so much for his country, that he does not want to see it suffer from such a horrible lack of judgment. Granted the Church is not a democracy, but the same principle applies. Dominican theologian Melchior Cano states the obvious: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See — they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”

For anyone who is interested, heres the link:

A Brief Defense of Traditionalism

 

[richwmiller]

Last year, I was commanded by a priest to never again genuflect in HIS church before I received Holy Communion (something which the Holy See allows, along with kneeling while receiving). My choices were to either get down on my knees before God, or to bow to this man and his “legitimate authority” as a shepherd of the Church.

The priest was wrong to command you. He should be counseling you. He went beyond his authority. An appeal to the bishop should have resolved this.
Although you have the “right” to genuflect you should be genuflecting while the person in front of you is receiving so as to not hinder the flow. The norm in the USA is to bow. You have the “ability” to kneel to receive communion too but it is not wise to insist on it.

Out of obedience, my family and I had to leave that parish where I was also the middle school science teacher, the director of the youth choir, a catechism teacher, and a cantor.

No, out of obedience, you should have complied with the preist.
Out of pride, you left the parish.
You should have appealed to the bishop and then to Rome if necessary.
To complete your obedience you shouldn’t be complaining either.

And you talk about “legitimate authority”? Don’t kid yourself. We’ll still be held accountable, no matter what man commands us to ignore the Word of God.

All the great saints have had to endure legitimate authority of the church forbidding things that they wanted. It is a test. Your will and what you think is right or the church versus what the church has the authority to command.
You will be held accountable for how you obeyed the church also!

The church is the legitimate authority to interpret scripture not you!

 

[Genesis315]

I agree! Communion in the hand is a departure from the teaching of the Catholic Church. Traditionally, only priests can consecrate and distribute holy communion no lay person can hold nor distribute the host in any case. I think the idea behind this communion in the hand originated from the protestant movement that denies the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the blessed sacrament. I hope this modern belief that creeped into our church may be changed back to its former discipline of communion in the tongue.

This is completely untrue. In fact, receiving on the tongue is more modern–in the hand is more ancient (note: I am not making value judgments as to which practice is better or which I prefer).

St. Basil the Great explains (letter 93):
And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.

As does St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture 23)

1. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen.

 

[estesbob]

It’s actually more a matter of particles coming off of the sacred host while in somebody’s hand and then being dropped on the ground to be trampled. That’s why we shouldn’t receive in the hand…too much handling.

As one who was an altar boy during the transition from Communion on the tongue to communion in the hands I can tell you that far more hosts were dropped when trying to put it on the tongue than were when puting it in ones hands.