on the tongue or in the hand?

[redkim]

Oh I’m not worried about it. I’m just curious.

 

[deogratias]

I tried to give someone some good rep points earlier today and could not either?

 

[redkim]

tcj directed me to the thread where Mr. Keating says he deactivated it because it was too confusing and took up too much of the moderators time…

Oh well!!!

 

[deogratias]

I can’t say that breaks my heart

 

[system]

deogratias:

However - there is no disobedience involved in kneeling, i.e. one cannot be refused communion if they kneel.

Communion cannot be refused if one kneels, but that does not prove that kneeling isn’t disobedient. Again, RS makes it clear that the prime considerations are “… to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law”.

There’s no point in debating the meaning of the word “disobedient”, but we must note the US Bishops do explicitly mention kneeling for communion as a deviation from the norm, to be addressed pastorally by providing proper catechesis. (Note that they made no such stipulation for hand-vs-tongue.)

 

[deogratias]

(Note that they made no such stipulation for hand-vs-tongue.)

True enough but RS does mention that either may be given only where there is an Indult in place for Communion on the Tongue.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

OTOH there is no Indult involved in the issue of kneeling vs standing

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the *recognitio *of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.[176]

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing

.

Since it is not licit to refuse, I took that to mean that is not disobedient to kneel.

See also adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

 

[deogratias]

Just a note on what “the norm” means. This is quoted from the Adoremus Bulletin Q&A regarding kneeling for reception of communion.

Before the bishops voted on the proposed adaptation of §160, a bishop questioned the meaning of the term “norm”. The chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb) said that “norm” is a descriptive term meaning the usual or standard practice, not a legal term. With this clarification, the bishops voted to accept the BCL’s wording of the adaptation.

Since then, however, some bishops and liturgists are interpreting “norm” as implying that standing is legally obligatory. This is not the case.

 

[misericordie]

loyola rambler:

In my youth, I was much more rigid and self-righteous (Ronald Reagan was such an idol!) But as I matured and as I started having kids and having to deal with their pre-conceived notions that everything maternal is inherently evil, I came to realize why God gave us all different talents and heads smart enough to work our way out of sticky situations. There are no absolute answers, other than we need to find our way to God and celebrate His glories in every way on everyday. If it’s done by dancing in prayer while doing housework, then hey! Blessed be God forever. If it’s found by meditating on a particular piece of organ music…then God is in each note.

Rigid thinking only makes for many frustrations. The real bottom line comes from one of those heretical secular songs from the 70s: You gotta take time to make time; make time to be there.

Showing up for mass is the first step in worship. It culminates with a wonderful little spiritual meal. Whether we put the Corpus Christi on our tongues or allow someone else to do it for us, the end result is a wonderful Communion with our Creator. Blessed be God forever!

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.

 

[misericordie]

Donna J:

I am the opposite. My tongue (what I say) gets me into more trouble than my hands (what I do).

Donna J

If logic is used: The tongue does NOT sin. The tongue neither has intellect, nor free will. HOWEVER, the SOUL sins by misuse of the intelect and the will, and hence submits these two to the passions.
Again, Tongues do not sin= hence to say the tongue sins more than the hand(neither sin) is a fallacy and illogical argument(thesis).

 

[misericordie]

(Note that they made no such stipulation for hand-vs-tongue.)

True enough but RS does mention that either may be given only where there is an Indult in place for Communion on the Tongue.

OTOH there is no Indult involved in the issue of kneeling vs standing

.

Since it is not licit to refuse, I took that to mean that is not disobedient to kneel.

See also adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

deogratias, this is excellent! I am sure though that even if the PROOF is posted as here, 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. However, it is clear: Communion on the tongue is the NORM, and Communion in the hand is the option. REPEAT again, communion in the hand is by a special indult.
We also have the INDULT RIGHT to attend the Latin Tridentine Mass, because the POPE Himself gave us that right once again in his 1988 document: “Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei.” Hence, is would be disobedience to the POPE to belittle TLM, which is highly supported too by Cardinal Stickler, S.D.B., AND Josef Ratzinger.

 

[frdave20]

pre VatII what was the Catechesis for receiving on the tongue?

 

[redkim]

deogratias:

Just a note on what “the norm” means. This is quoted from the Adoremus Bulletin Q&A regarding kneeling for reception of communion.

Before the bishops voted on the proposed adaptation of §160, a bishop questioned the meaning of the term “norm”. The chairman of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb) said that “norm” is a descriptive term meaning the usual or standard practice, not a legal term. With this clarification, the bishops voted to accept the BCL’s wording of the adaptation

Thanks, deo! This is what I was referring to earlier when I was talking about what “norm” meant: norm not in the legal sense, but, rather, in the ordinary sense; like “It’s normal to do this.”

My brilliance astounds me sometimes! :whacky:

 

[redkim]

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.

Loyola is not talking about disobeying Church teachings as acceptable. I know loyola quite well and she is as Orthodox when it comes to Church doctrine as anybody else. She simply recognizes that there are more important things for the laity to concentrate on than other things.

And as for those who disobey Church teachings, as laity we should gently instruct them and be patient with them as they journey in their faith. This is what was done for me.

It is very important to realize that while we can disagree with Church discipline, and even hope for change in Church discipline, we can also be very orthodox in adhering to Church doctrine.

 

[redkim]

misericordie:

If logic is used: The tongue does NOT sin. The tongue neither has intellect, nor free will. HOWEVER, the SOUL sins by misuse of the intelect and the will, and hence submits these two to the passions.
Again, Tongues do not sin= hence to say the tongue sins more than the hand(neither sin) is a fallacy and illogical argument(thesis).

Read what she wrote again. She wasn’t really talking about her tongue.

 

[redkim]

frdave20:

pre VatII what was the Catechesis for receiving on the tongue?

While I don’t know if there even is an exact catechesis, receiving on the tongue was the only to receive it here in the US.

 

[deogratias]

Originally Posted by frdave20
pre VatII what was the Catechesis for receiving on the tongue?

Well that’s going back a way for me to remember but I think we were taught that only the priest’s hands were concecrated and so only he could touch the Eucharist.

But to be clear - communion in the hand was not a result of Vatican II. As I understand it a few countries had begun, on their own, this practice prior to Vatican II. The U.S. was not one of them. Because of this Paul VI surveyed the bishops of the world and they almost unanimously agreed that communion on the tongue should remain the norm.

For reasons not clear to me, however, Paul VI decided to grant an indult to those countries where it had become a common practice. Even stranger was the fact that the U.S., where the practice was not common or the norm, also solicited to have the Indult and even stranger yet, it was granted. Go figure.

I also remember being told about precommunion fasting, back in the days when you fasted from midnight until morning Mass - that it was not respectful to receive the Lord into a stomach filled with food - liteally making ourselves an empty vessel to receive him.

Perhaps medical knowledge that shows the stomach does not take 8 hours to empty was the influence in changing that rule.

 

[redkim]

deogratias:

I also remember being told about precommunion fasting, back in the days when you fasted from midnight until morning Mass - that it was not respectful to receive the Lord into a stomach filled with food - liteally making ourselves an empty vessel to receive him.

Perhaps medical knowledge that shows the stomach does not take 8 hours to empty was the influence in changing that rule.

Although I was never taught that it had to be from midnight, I was taught in my formative years that we simply didn’t eat breakfast before Mass for this very reason.

I received my First Holy Communion in 1972, making me a total post-Vatican II baby. We received on the tongue, but not at the communion rail kneeling.

 

[system]

redkim:

I received my First Holy Communion in 1972, making me a total post-Vatican II baby. We received on the tongue, but not at the communion rail kneeling.

Ditto to all of that. Our church had the old rails but I never ever saw them used. In our parish, communion-in-the-hand, and communion under both kinds (along with an EMHC to assist) came later in the 70’s.

 

[deogratias]

I wonder, in countries which only permit reception on the tongue, if those countries are also using routine EMHC or actually using them only under extraordinary circumstances. Anyone know?

 

[system]

misericordie:

deogratias, this is excellent! I am sure though that even if the PROOF is posted as here, 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. However, it is clear: Communion on the tongue is the NORM, and Communion in the hand is the option. REPEAT again, communion in the hand is by a special indult.
We also have the INDULT RIGHT to attend the Latin Tridentine Mass, because the POPE Himself gave us that right once again in his 1988 document: “Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei.” Hence, is would be disobedience to the POPE to belittle TLM, which is highly supported too by Cardinal Stickler, S.D.B., AND Josef Ratzinger.

Proof of what? Refuse to get what? There’s been no disagreement in this thread. So I hope your comments are not addressed to any of us.

• TLM is by indult, and to be respected. (And “God help you” if you don’t.) Both masses to be respected and not questioned at all.
• Communion in the hand is by indult in the US. It is equally as valid as communion on the tongue. Both options to be respected and not questioned at all.
• Communion is to be given to all who “seek it in a reasonable manner”. The US norm, AND Rome has declared that kneeling is a “reasonable manner” therefore not in need of Indult. However, IN THE US those who insist on kneeling are to be “addressed pastorally”. The US Bishops make this distinction, I really don’t care. Rome has reminded us in RS that communion is not to be denied, but they are apparently OK with the “addressed pastorally” part since it hasn’t been struck down.

As I said, we’re all in agreement so if you have a different point to make, let’s hear it.