on the tongue or in the hand?

[kwitz]

Gloria Patris77:

And if it is not sacralidge to support reasons why.

thanks

It is not sacriligious to take communion in the hand because there is an indult in place giving permission.

It is not sacriligious to attend a TLM because there is an indult in place giving permission.

Indults = permission whether it is your preference or not.

Kris

 

[deogratias]

am curious why or how it was decided against otherrwise-Can someone tell me how the cummunion in the hand started? And if it is not sacralidge to support reasons why

See post 116 in this thread for an explanation.

 

[thisismyusrname]

I always recieve on the tounge. I use to recieve on the hand but then started recieving on the tounge, i think probably mainly because of a stage of scrupulosity i went through and the fear of particles being left on my hand. Even though i don’t suffer from quite as severe scrupulosity as i used to, i still recieve on the tounge, kneeling if i serve Mass or given the option with a Communion rail.

 

[misericordie]

NYer:

As a cradle catholic who lived through the Vatican II changes, I was reduced to tears earlier this year, watching an EEM (or whatever they are now called) in my parish, drop a consecrated host on the ground, bend over, pick it up and toss it back into her Pyrex glass salad bowl communion cup.

In searching for a new parish community, I discovered a Maronite Catholic Church not far from my home. Encouraged by a friend, I attended their Divine Liturgy, was totally moved by the dignity, respect and devotion given to the Holy Eucharist, and have now joined the parish.

In the Maronite Catholic Church, communion is by intinction. ONLY the priest may touch the consecrated host. He dips it into the Precious Blood, and places it on the tongue of the communicant, with the words:

“Receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sin and eternal salvation.”

There are NO Eucharistic Ministers and NO communion in the hand. Roman Catholics may attend any Eastern Catholic Church and fulfill their Sunday obligation. In the Maronite Church, the consecration is in Aramaic, using the language and words of our Lord at the Last Supper.

The Maronite liturgy is one of the oldest in the Catholic Church. St. Peter and other Apostles brought the liturgy of the Last Super to Antioch where it developed in Greek and Syriac concurrently. The early Antioch liturgy is the basis of the Maronite liturgy. To this day, the Maronite Church retains its Jewish roots more than any other Catholic rite, as evidenced by its use of Aramaic/Syriac and by the prayers which remain faithful to Semantic and Old Testament forms.

The Vatican II Council declared that “all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition” (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15). Pope John Paul II said that “the Catholic Church is both Eastern and Western.”

“The Eastern Churches are the Treasures of the Catholic Church” – Pope John XXIII

This is so wonderful. We need more very smart catholics like you, that are interested in adoring Christ in the Eucharist, not wjo just want to do their own whims or prove a feminist/liberal agenda.
God bless you.

 

[misericordie]

Gloria Patris77:

Wasn’t touching the host considered a sacralidge in the old days? Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas,say in his Summa Theologica: Because out of reverence towards 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." Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13.

I am curious why or how it was decided against otherrwise-Can someone tell me how the cummunion in the hand started? And if it is not sacralidge to support reasons why.

thanks

Yes! Very ggod observation. It was not however the “old” days, but the Church is one and always the Catholic Church. Aquinas was by the way the only theologian recmended by Vatican II, the only one. Good point. If only people would observe truth as you have here, instead of just going by their personal whims, and no matter what they have to be “extra-ordinary ministers of the Eucharist”, than there would be much less sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist. Not so long ago, I saw a person recieve Communion in the hand, walk away and put it in her pocket. I immediately notified the priest, and she was stopped.

 

[meep]

I love to receive the Eucharist on my tongue instead of touching Him with my unworthy hands, and I love the communion rail at my church. The only complication is that after having my wisdom teeth out, I have difficulty opening my mouth wide enough to make it easy for the priest! :yawn:

 

[system]

misericordie:

This is so wonderful. We need more very smart catholics like you, that are interested in adoring Christ in the Eucharist, not wjo just want to do their own whims or prove a feminist/liberal agenda.

misericordie:

If only people would observe truth as you have here, instead of just going by their personal whims, and no matter what they have to be “extra-ordinary ministers of the Eucharist”, than there would be much less sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist.

You seem determined to throw up smoke screens to discredit communion in the hand. Despite your earlier (and repeated) agreement that it is a valid practice, allowed in the US and elsewhere by the authority of the church. That is the only “truth” we need to observe. Either you believe it or you don’t.

I completely disagree that any “whims” or “feminist/liberal agendas” are involved.

 

[misericordie]

tcj:

You seem determined to throw up smoke screens to discredit communion in the hand. Despite your earlier (and repeated) agreement that it is a valid practice, allowed in the US and elsewhere by the authority of the church. That is the only “truth” we need to observe. Either you believe it or you don’t.

I completely disagree that any “whims” or “feminist/liberal agendas” are involved.

I am glad you are so observant here. Now, two facts to be stated in my overall thesis: (1) Communion in the hand in the United States of America(the Catholic Church here) is allowed only by indult. Hence it is the option, not the worldwide norm. (2). According to the Vatican itself, from which the Catholic Church in the United States is not waived from, Communion is not to be denied on the tongue(and it has by many priests both religious and secular)to anyone who so desires, nor can it even be denied on the basis that they kneel to recieve, even if the Mass is Novus Ordo. The present norm of the Church, which has never been removed, and the standard is: Communion on the tongue. However, communion in the hand is tolerated(Church in the USA only) by speacial permission called indult.:tiphat: :tiphat:

 

[kwitz]

My guess is that while I prefer Communion in the hand, I’d give up my indult for it a lot more peacefully than many would if the indult for the TLM was taken away. In both cases there is the norm and the indult. Since the indult for the TLM is allowed, I won’t try to tell you (and I’m using the word “you” here in a general sense - not specific to any one poster) the norm Mass is better if you don’t try to tell me that my indult for Communion in the hand is somehow less “holy”.

Kris

 

[deogratias]

Communion on the tongue. However, communion in the hand is tolerated(Church in the USA only) by speacial permission called

It is not in the USA only.

I thought I posted it clearly before but here we go again (repetition is sometimes the best form of teaching they say)

In the Roman Catholic Church it is the norm to recieve Christ on the tongue.

Vatican II never envisioned that there would be communion in the hand.

Prior to Vatican II, **several countries (American was not one of them) were illicitly providing communion in the hand.
**
When this came to the attention of Paul VI, he polled all the Bishops to see if this should be changed universally.

Almost unanimously, the Bishops elected to keep communion on the tongue as the norm.

All the novelties did not begin in the U.S. and definitely not communion in the hand.

**Paul VI granted an indult, special permission contrary to canon law, that those countries that already had the practice could continue to receive communion in the hand.
**
The U.S. was not one of these countries.

**The U.S. Bishops decided to petition for the Indult for the U.S. as well and it was granted.
**

Neither may be refused in coutries where both the norm and the Indult are exercised.

In countries where there is no Indult (of which the US is one but not the only one) only communion on the tongue will be offered.

 

[SHEMP]

kwitz:

My guess is that while I prefer Communion in the hand, I’d give up my indult for it a lot more peacefully than many would if the indult for the TLM was taken away. In both cases there is the norm and the indult. Since the indult for the TLM is allowed, I won’t try to tell you (and I’m using the word “you” here in a general sense - not specific to any one poster) the norm Mass is better if you don’t try to tell me that my indult for Communion in the hand is somehow less “holy”.

Kris

Nice post

 

[system]

misericordie:

Now, two facts to be stated in my overall thesis:

Please, please… not again! This is not about the facts, the facts are not in dispute. Everyone knows the history, everyone knows the facts. This thread has gone down that road several times already.

Re-read what I quoted. If you continue to compliment some people, but also make snide comments about others having “whims” or “feminist/liberal agendas”, expect to be asked to account for it.

 

[deogratias]

I am sorry if I was redundant but it keeps popping up that this is a U.S. Indult only and that is not accurate.

 

[misericordie]

deogratias:

It is not in the USA only.

I thought I posted it clearly before but here we go again (repetition is sometimes the best form of teaching they say)

In the Roman Catholic Church it is the norm to recieve Christ on the tongue.

Vatican II never envisioned that there would be communion in the hand.

Prior to Vatican II, several countries (American was not one of them) were illicitly providing communion in the hand.

When this came to the attention of Paul VI, he polled all the Bishops to see if this should be changed universally.

Almost unanimously, the Bishops elected to keep communion on the tongue as the norm.

All the novelties did not begin in the U.S. and definitely not communion in the hand.

Paul VI granted an indult, special permission contrary to canon law, that those countries that already had the practice could continue to receive communion in the hand.

The U.S. was not one of these countries.

The U.S. Bishops decided to petition for the Indult for the U.S. as well and it was granted.

Neither may be refused in coutries where both the norm and the Indult are exercised.

In countries where there is no Indult (of which the US is one but not the only one) only communion on the tongue will be offered.

Thanks deo. This is the official position as it currently stands(what you stated above). I too feel I am going in circles here, after all some others still don’t get it. But become defensive when facts are stated. Something is either true or false, not a maybe. Again to all: the Catholic Church in the USA is not waived from the Holy See.

 

[system]

misericordie:

I too feel I am going in circles here, after all some others still don’t get it. But become defensive when facts are stated.

Again? Unbelievable. That’s almost a word-for-word copy of your post #110:

misericordie:

there will be those who, just don’t get it, or will refuse to(they will then have an agenda). Some REFUSE to recognize the color green as green, or that the world is round.

When you were questioned about it, your reply was post #122:

misericordie:

I did not think anyone HERE would take it so personally

And now you’re doing it again. This time I do take it personally.

Once again I ask you to defend or explain the comments cited in post 187, namely:

misericordie:

We need more very smart catholics like you, that are interested in adoring Christ in the Eucharist, not wjo just want to do their own whims or prove a feminist/liberal agenda.

and

misericordie:

If only people would observe truth as you have here, instead of just going by their personal whims

and now

misericordie:

after all some others still don’t get it. But become defensive when facts are stated.

Go ahead, explain what you meant. Comments about “whims” and “personal agendas” are not facts, so don’t pretend that they are.

 

[misericordie]

tcj:

Again? Unbelievable. That’s almost a word-for-word copy of your post #110:When you were questioned about it, your reply was post #122:And now you’re doing it again. This time I do take it personally.

Once again I ask you to defend or explain the comments cited in post 187, namely:andand nowGo ahead, explain what you meant. Comments about “whims” and “personal agendas” are not facts, so don’t pretend that they are.

Wow, I have to admit, I appalud you for actually taking the task and energy to see be so specific. You do take things very personal :tsktsk: .:nope: :dancing: . But since you seem to like my postings on the truth about the Church’s teachings on manners of distribution of the Eucharist here I go again: Communion on the tongue is the norm, Communion in the hand is the indulted option.

 

[misericordie]

GregC.:

wonderful observation. please pray for us young ones, as we are constantly under attack for our faith, from both the secular society and the modern CCD (cut color and draw) class that doesn’t teach us the rosary, eucharistic adoration, or even basic catholic prayers (but we can make a great nativity scene with recycled cardboard!). Yes, I receive on the tongue; no, i wasn’t taught it was an option in my religious ed class. I learned that from the same wonderful people who taught me the rosary and showed me Adoration and Benediction,taught me how to pray the Breviary, and introduced me to novenas–EWTN!

Now this is why we have to keep repeating the truths, especially with regards to the Holy Communion.
Now this is an excellent objective post.

 

[system]

misericordie:

you seem to like my postings on the truth about the Church’s teachings on manners of distribution

Friend, I don’t think you’ve made a single posting in this thread which represented the complete truth. Someone has always come along behind you, to finish the story. So don’t flatter yourself.

Still dodging the actual question, I see. I guess you’re enjoying it. But we’re still waiting for you to explain what you mean by “personal whims” and “liberal/feminist agenda”, as you have apparently applied to the Church-sanctioned practice of Communion in the hand.

You’re affecting your own credibility by failing to do so.

 

[misericordie]

misericordie:

I consider “mature” a Catholic who abides by ALL the Church’s teachings. Who are we to DISOBEY and do our thing with regards to the church. Those who do do their own thing seem like the child who’s lollypop is taken away by an adult because the child is having to much sweets. The child will then protest by complaining and crying instead of obeying his parents who only want the best for him, and who gave the child life.

My “credibility” may be affected in the discussion on Communion, but not by those who tend to be faithful to the official teachings of the Church. Well, ummm, I am not interested in a popularity contest, just in passing on the Official teachings of the Church, especially regarding the latest document from cardinal Arinze, and what is permitted and what things such as crystal/glass, wooden, or clay chalices have been abrogated(not allowed). So, let me just repeat what I previously posted above in the yellow box.:clapping:

 

[Anne_Carmel]

This is a general reminder to remain civil. Failure will result in the closure of this thread.