Method of Receiving Holy Communion?

[Ter1]

The Pope did not say this. In fact he says something else in his book, “Light of the World”. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I just posted this in the other forum in which it was mentioned

Hi, I’m not the person who brought it up, but I’ve found the relevant quote for those who are interested. I apologise for the length - I quoted his entire answer to the question so that it would be clear for everyone.

From Chapter 15 of Light of the World “How is the Church renewed”; pg 158 (CTS/Ignatius Hardback publication)
Q = … As Pope, you have begun to administer communion on the tongue, while the communicants receive the sacrament on their knees. Do you regard this as the appropriate posture?
***A = ***The first point that needs to be made is that time has a structure that is common for all believers. The Old Testament prescribes this structure already in light of the creation account, presenting the Sabbath as the day when God rests and men rest with him. For Christians, time gets this structure from Sunday, the day of the Resurrection, when he encounters us and we encounter him. Once again, the most important act here is, as it were, the moment when he unites himself to us through his self-gift.

***I am not opposed in principle to communion in the hand; I have both administered and received communion in this way myself. ***The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point. ***One very importan reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of mass events we hold at Saint Peter’s, ***both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after recieving communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir. In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive communion - everyone else is going up, so I will, too - I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here. He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention! This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to.

As you can see he says that he has administered communion in the hand to laypeople (the whole question implies this - the discussion isn’t about how priests receive). He is saying that he introduced kneeling to respond to a need specific to such “mass events” to try and ensure all comers are aware that “something quite special is going on”; he is not mandating it for those regular mass goers who are aware of what is happening (who, however, can chose to kneel if they so wish).

Hope this helps,
Ter

 

[paperwight66]

Thank you, Ter. Please see other thread , ‘Authoritative statement etc’ for more comments.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, popes hesitate. Pope John Paul II was very conservative but very open. To him, the Eucharist was to be given in the tongue. I remember that in Paris (pardon, I may miss the place but I am almost sure it was in Paris), a little kid put his hands forward. He hesitated a second and put the host on his hand.
I miss him…

I hope people would stop saying what the Pope is thinking based on their own personal interpretation on their own observation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you have any sources you can point me to for this connection between Communion in the hand and the Arian heresy?

I’m very interested in the Arianism, and how it connects to the current assault on the Church by the modernists (among others)

Pax and God Bless.

Communion in the Hand is the normative way to receive in the Assyrian Church of the East which is an Apostolic Church founded by St. Thomas the Apostle. Those belonging to that Church who have come into communion with Rome are called Chaldeans.

 

[At_Trent]

…

***I am not opposed in principle to communion in the hand; I have both administered and received communion in this way myself. ***The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point. ***One very importan reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of mass events we hold at Saint Peter’s, ***both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after recieving communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir. In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive communion - everyone else is going up, so I will, too - I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here. He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention! This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to…

Hope this helps,
Ter

Why not bold this part ?

I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here. He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention !

Dominus est. It is the Lord.

---

We kneel during the Consecration and other times. We genuflect during the Angelus. We kneel in Confession. But when we are as close to Him as we will ever be on this earth, at the moment right before we receive Him, some argue we can just stand. Well, yes we can, the Church allows it right now.

But just as those who want to stand argue their right to do so, those who kneel also have have that right. So, neither is wrong as it stands. Both sides should accept that.

So where does that leave us for the sake of presenting our case for the option we choose to approach the Blessed Sacrament to receive ? I think for those of us who want to kneel and receive COTT, it’s certainly not to appear “holier than thou”, not at all. It is because of an awareness that for centuries, the Church taught that only consecrated hands touch the Blessed Sacrament. The Church had good reasons for deciding this was best. Also, traditionally, again for a very very long time, we knelt to receive. Again, the Church decided this was best. And both of those reasons are easy to understand. After all, it is the Lord.

Now, for those who wish to receive standing and in the hand, the argument for such is that the Church allows it. That is true, and so those who don’t prefer to receive that way, we should not judge. But, two things should be taken into account here. First of all, CITH does in fact disregard the reasons the Church deemed only consecrated hands touch the Host. Secondly, this practice was NOT re-introduced by the Church. It was introduced at the parish level and spread. Pope Paul VI saw this and asked the worlds Bishops what they thought of this. The great majority did not like it and voted NO.

Now traditionally, Rome calls the shots. Well, even after seeing that Rome and the majority of Bishops did not want this new method of receiving Holy Communion, the practice continued. Not in the rubrics, not authorized, but continued anyway. Finally it became tolerated via indult.

So here is one method introduced by Rome, accepted without question, and one not introduced by Rome, an unauthorized practice that was frankly an about face compared to the norm. And so here we are today, arguing over the issue.

So what other arguments are there for standing and receiving CITH besides "the Church says we can " ? Some say early Christians stood and received CITH. While true, it isn’t that simple. Bishop Schneider explains … fr.gloria.tv/?media=2710

The Eastern Churches, and some Latin Rites have a tradition of CITH. That is fine. That is their tradition. But the Roman Catholic Church has her own traditions, while we should not judge each other for our choices in this matter, it certainly is ok to judge the reasons given for each method of receiving. The track record for COTT, kneeling, has no red flags nor is it subject to any valid argument against it. Never has Rome discarded it, suppressed it, or re-evaluated it’s value. On the other hand, CITH as practiced today, will always have that history of being introduced as a novelty, growing into an abuse, and finally, being reluctantly accepted via indult. And even the guidelines of the indult were ignored in some cases. And following this indult came the practice of using EMHC’s, the guidelines for which also are not meat in many instances.

So you see, the arguments against CITH are valid. Disobedience and abuses are part of it’s history. COTT on the other hand, bears no valid argument against it all. There is none. one simply does not exist. Only the hurtful assertion of “holier than thou” is in the arsenal of those who speak against Roman Catholics who embrace COTT. If one cannot attack the traditional practice itself, those who refuse to let the practice die are attacked. And they haven’t done anything wrong… at all.

 

[TrueLight]

Why not bold this part ?

I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here. He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention !

Dominus est. It is the Lord.

---

We kneel during the Consecration and other times. We genuflect during the Angelus. We kneel in Confession. But when we are as close to Him as we will ever be on this earth, at the moment right before we receive Him, some argue we can just stand. Well, yes we can, the Church allows it right now.

But just as those who want to stand argue their right to do so, those who kneel also have have that right. So, neither is wrong as it stands. Both sides should accept that.

So where does that leave us for the sake of presenting our case for the option we choose to approach the Blessed Sacrament to receive ? I think for those of us who want to kneel and receive COTT, it’s certainly not to appear “holier than thou”, not at all. It is because of an awareness that for centuries, the Church taught that only consecrated hands touch the Blessed Sacrament. The Church had good reasons for deciding this was best. Also, traditionally, again for a very very long time, we knelt to receive. Again, the Church decided this was best. And both of those reasons are easy to understand. After all, it is the Lord.
Now, for those who wish to receive standing and in the hand, the argument for such is that the Church allows it. That is true, and so those who don’t prefer to receive that way, we should not judge. But, two things should be taken into account here. First of all, CITH does in fact disregard the reasons the Church deemed only consecrated hands touch the Host. Secondly, this practice was NOT re-introduced by the Church. It was introduced at the parish level and spread. Pope Paul VI saw this and asked the worlds Bishops what they thought of this. The great majority did not like it and voted NO.

Now traditionally, Rome calls the shots. Well, even after seeing that Rome and the majority of Bishops did not want this new method of receiving Holy Communion, the practice continued. Not in the rubrics, not authorized, but continued anyway. Finally it became tolerated via indult.

So here is one method introduced by Rome, accepted without question, and one not introduced by Rome, an unauthorized practice that was frankly an about face compared to
the norm. And so here we are today, arguing over the issue.

So what other arguments are there for standing and receiving CITH besides "the Church says we can " ? Some say early Christians stood and received CITH. While true, it isn’t that simple. Bishop Schneider explains … fr.gloria.tv/?media=2710

The Eastern Churches, and some Latin Rites have a tradition of CITH. That is fine. That is their tradition. But the Roman Catholic Church has her own traditions, while we should not judge each other for our choices in this matter, it certainly is ok to judge the reasons given for each method of receiving. The track record for COTT, kneeling, has no red flags nor is it subject to any valid argument against it. Never has Rome discarded it, suppressed it, or re-evaluated it’s value. On the other hand, CITH as practiced today, will always have that history of being introduced as a novelty, growing into an abuse, and finally, being reluctantly accepted via indult. And even the guidelines of the indult were ignored in
some cases. And following this indult came the practice of using EMHC’s, the guidelines for which also are not meat in many instances.

So you see, the arguments against CITH are valid. Disobedience and abuses are part of it’s history. COTT on the other hand, bears no valid argument against it all. There is none. one simply does not exist. Only the hurtful assertion of “holier than thou” is in the arsenal of those who speak against Roman Catholics who embrace COTT. If one cannot attack the traditional practice itself, those who refuse to let the practice die are attacked. And they haven’t done anything wrong… at all.

At Trent, this is an awesome post. Something pro CITH advocates should really ponder.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

On the tongue is outdated and it is a dated fashion from the times where priests thought that ordinary people were not worth of touching God in the Eucharist.

It is a bit childish, dont you think? I guess no one in the first Mass, the Last Supper, used that method.

The orthodox method is even worse, with the 2 species, bread and wine, the same spoon used to everybody.

I think one should be allowed to use the 2 species, bread and wine. You took the species of bread and you wet (english on?) it on the species of wine and took it. As Jesus said, my Flesh and My Blood. But still the Church is reluctant.

This thread encompasses all the common misconceptions and modernisms pertaining to how the time honored traditions of the Catholic church are poo-pooed by [modern catholics].

Recieving on the tongue is childish and outdated while recieving on the hand is modern and mature.

How idiotic, irreverent and lacking in devotion.

Wait and see…the time is coming when the “old traditions” will return. And hopefully the “modern catholics” don’t go looking for greener pastures elswhere…in a more modern church.

 

[fall_fox]

I don’t think so. There is simply no way that the indult for CIH will be repealed in my opinion. CIH is hughly preferred throughout the USA (even by people who were catechized when only COT was allowed.) Normally I would choose that no change will take place but Pope Benedict is cleaning-up a great many loose ends. While he may personally prefer COT I think he might see the wiscom in making both methods the universal standard.

I’m not sure that wisdom was a part of allowing CIH, there have been abuses that could not have happened with COT. Now their at a place where it is difficult to take CIH away, for fear of upsetting people. Folks we have no RIGHTS, the Church can decide that it would be better for the reverance of the Holy Eucharist if CIH was abolished. Besides the Consicrated Hosts that are found different places in Church, who knows how many get out of Church, EMs can’t see everyone, how many people check their hand after receiving? The Church need not worry about upseting people and protect the Holy Eucharist.
Myself, I am in favor of Intinction, that way we can still receive both forms for a seamingly more complete Eucharistic Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus. The main thing is to take part in the Eucharistic Banquet. Don’t demand your rights, you have none.

 

[fall_fox]

Communion patens rarely work. They often seem to get in the way more than anything. To say however that dropping a Host would “not be a problem” as long as there is a communion paten is just wrong.

I know what the Host does when it falls to the paten, It bounces right off, regardless what you try to do to prevent its droping. I was an Alter Boy in the 1950’s. I’m sure the Host would act the same today. I still serve mass during the week, thank Him very much.

 

[At_Trent]

At Trent, this is an awesome post. Something pro CITH advocates should really ponder.

Thanks. That is all we can ask, is that the history of both manners of receiving be considered.

 

[At_Trent]

This thread encompasses all the common misconceptions and modernisms pertaining to how the time honored traditions of the Catholic church are poo-pooed by [modern catholics].

Recieving on the tongue is childish and outdated while recieving on the hand is modern and mature.

How idiotic, irreverent and lacking in devotion.

Wait and see…the time is coming when the “old traditions” will return. And hopefully the “modern catholics” don’t go looking for greener pastures elswhere…in a more modern church.

Hear Hear !

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

T

I was surprised by the reactions of people of the USA. receiving in the hand is common in Europe and it is not a questions for discussion.
I explained that by"childish" I meant that only children receive food this was. It not a modern fasion, please. Jesus used it in the first Mass, the Last Supper.

 

[paperwight66]

I was surprised by the reactions of people of the USA. receiving in the hand is common in Europe and it is not a questions for discussion.
I explained that by"childish" I meant that only children receive food this was. It not a modern fasion, please. Jesus used it in the first Mass, the Last Supper.

I know that English isn’t your first language, so perhaps this will help.
There is a tricky distinction in English, but worth knowing, between ‘childish’ and ‘childlike’. I thiuk you probably meant ‘childlike’,Pffaff.

Childish is critical, perjorative - ‘Oh stop being so childish!’.

‘Childlike’ is usually a good thing, because it has connotations of gentleness, obedience, trust and so on.

Yes, you are right about CITH being common in Europe. Very few in our parish, or anywhere I’ve been, receive COTT.

 

[Ter1]

So you see, the arguments against CITH are valid.

Just to be clear, I personally have received COTT for almost all my life (in the last 4 years I started CITH, for reasons I’m not going to go into), it is my preferred method (I mentioned why I disliked CITH in a earlier post). I made my First Communion in 1987 and those whose parents wished us to receive on the tongue were taught how to as part of our preparation just as the majority were taught how to receive in the hand.

What I was responding, and objecting, to was the false claim being made that Pope Benedict had condemned CITH and told the Christian faithful to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

Also, while I received on the tongue I did not kneel to receive (nor did anyone else who received on the tongue), except when in those few churches which retained their altar rails. Without altar rails it is pretty much impossible for older people to kneel to receive. Kneeling to receive has now started to appear among one or two of the young people (I once saw someone go down on one knee to receive in the hand and spent the time worrying that she would overbalance before she actually swallowed the Host:blush

 

[ProVobis]

I didn’t vote. The Church has made it clear as to its policies on this. It is up to the bishops and pastors to decide the manner communion is to be received.

 

[At_Trent]

What I was responding, and objecting, to was the false claim being made that Pope Benedict had condemned CITH and told the Christian faithful to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

What post # was that ? I see no post in this thread that states the pope condemned CITH .

And I don’t recall ever seeing a COTT proponent who didn’t use common sense in regards to folks with physical restraints that would prevent them kneeling. It should go without saying,

 

[Ter1]

Post Number 49

Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only

Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I read this post as a claim that Pope Benedict didn’t want Christians to receive in the hand i.e. was condemning the practice. That and the request for details of what the Pope said in his recent interview book was what I was responding to.

 

[Ter1]

And I don’t recall ever seeing a COTT proponent who didn’t use common sense in regards to folks with physical restraints that would prevent them kneeling. It should go without saying,

What I’m saying is that for Communion kneeling to become a universal practice would require a return to altar rails since even healthy 50+ (and even under 50s) cannot be sure of getting up from their knees without a stagger (step forward to keep balance etc) and the nervousness of not staggering into the priest would add to the pressure. I do not think a return to altar rails is likely, although the parish priest of a small country parish near us refused to get rid of his altar rails after Vatican II because he said that in 20 or 30 years they would change their minds again and start telling us to put them back.

Second point, there seems to be a certain confusion, COTT does not neccessarily mean Communion kneeling nor does kneeling mean COTT. As I said, in those churches where railings were retained people kneel to receive and most receive in the hand and since most churches don’t have altar rails those who receive on the tongue there do so standing.

 

[TrueLight]

I propose mandatory installation of altar rails, funded by the Vatican, and a return to COTT, while kneeling for those able to kneel.

 

[At_Trent]

Post Number 49

You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I read this post as a claim that Pope Benedict didn’t want Christians to receive in the hand i.e. was condemning the practice. That and the request for details of what the Pope said in his recent interview book was what I was responding to.

Ok, but if you are going to cite a false claim, you must be willing to present the false claim.
I see what you mean though, the title of that one article is misleading.