D
deogratias
Guest
Debbie I am sure you are correct and that was what added to my confusion, the canonization of St. Josemaria Escriva at the same time.
- Status
S
SHEMP
Guest
Karl Keating argued in an e-letter that it is reasonable to not receive the Cup because of infectious risks. By this same reasoning you can argue that we should encourage all to receive the Host in the hand so that we decrease the risk of infection.
D
deogratias
Guest
Excuse me - this is false reasoning. I stand beside you at Mass, you have a bad cold, you constanly cough and put your hand in front of your mouth, then later on you offer me that hand while we say the our Father and then again at the sign of peace. Now both your hand and mine are germ covered and you say it is healthier to receive the Host in the hand than to have it placed on my tongue - the priest does not touch the tongue by the way.
S
SHEMP
Guest
I received the Eucharist yesterday on the tongue and I also got to taste the Priest’s finger! If you were behind me you would have tasted his finger and my saliva!
I never said that I agree with Keating or disagree with Keating. I receive the Eucharist on the tongue and I receive the Cup of Christ’s Blood when available.
S
scaxter
Guest
By “proper” I meant “most reverent” way of receiving the Eucharist is by way of intinction from a priest. Receiving from the chalice is acceptable, but I believe it is being abused. It used to be that it was only for special occasions or on occasion that the people would partake in drinking from the cup. Now at many churches they do it at every single Mass the church has, including the week day Masses. I think this is opening the door to more irreverent accidents.
A priest I know used to teach that when you receive either the Body of Christ OR the Blood of Christ you are in fact receiving BOTH Body and Blood. It is not necessary to always drink from the chalice because you have already received Christ’s Blood in His Body; both are contained within the other. That is why this *extra *passing around of the cup opens the door to more accidents.
C
coeyannie
Guest
I have read several posts and people say their mouths get them in trouble, so they receive Holy Communion in the hand. What, pray tell, do you do with the host from there. Don’t you put the host in your mouth? What if there are particles on your hand and you aren’t aware of it. Also, some of the casual manner and irreverency in which some people treat the host is very disturbing. I believe we should receive Holy Communion on the tongue. I also believe we have too many EEME’s. There is no reason why a priest cannot distribute Holy Communion to 50 people, rather than having EEME’s assist him. I also think that an EEME should always be prepared to be asked to assist, since we have no choice in the manner, by coming to church dressed in appropriate clothing and footwear, not sweats and flip flops.
F
Fergal
Guest
Folks,
Isn’t it so easy to get caught up with externals?? Jesus had a parable about that you know!
Really we should be asking how does Jesus prefer to be received? Or who does Jesus prefer to receive you?
I think the answer would be more focused on the condition of the human heart?
Just a thought.
Fergal
Naas
Ireland
(PS, I receive on the tongue always!!!
)
Isn’t it so easy to get caught up with externals?? Jesus had a parable about that you know!
Really we should be asking how does Jesus prefer to be received? Or who does Jesus prefer to receive you?
I think the answer would be more focused on the condition of the human heart?
Just a thought.
Fergal
Naas
Ireland
(PS, I receive on the tongue always!!!
)
M
MariaG
Guest
For unity sake, the norm in the U.S. is standing for communion. You cannot however be denied communion for kneeling. However, the priest is supposed to pull you aside later (not in Mass) to properly educate a person on the norm. So if you know the norm, you are acting in disobedience to insist on kneeling. You are placing yourself above the authority of the bishops. Like them or not, they are in authority over us.
I prefer taking communion on the tongue, but our recently retired pastor preferred to give it in the hand. Although he never denied it to anyone who wanted to take it by tongue, as a ccd teacher he instructed us to teach the “preferred method” of taking it by hand. Since taking communion by hand is allowed, and since our pastor is acting “as Christ” I always felt it was disrespectful to Christ to insist on it on the tongue when our priest had made his wishes clear. But now, I can once again receive how I wish, at least until/if? this new priest tells us to teach a “preferred” method.
I prefer taking communion on the tongue, but our recently retired pastor preferred to give it in the hand. Although he never denied it to anyone who wanted to take it by tongue, as a ccd teacher he instructed us to teach the “preferred method” of taking it by hand. Since taking communion by hand is allowed, and since our pastor is acting “as Christ” I always felt it was disrespectful to Christ to insist on it on the tongue when our priest had made his wishes clear. But now, I can once again receive how I wish, at least until/if? this new priest tells us to teach a “preferred” method.
D
deogratias
Guest
Preferred by whom? Not by me. Not by Rome. The Norm is on the tongue, one may receive in the hand in this country by Indult but not everywhere.
M
MariaG
Guest
Preferred by him, and he was the representative of Christ in my church. To disrespect him was to disrespect Christ in my opinion.
P
pnewton
Guest
Amen!Folks,
Isn’t it so easy to get caught up with externals?? Jesus had a parable about that you know!
Really we should be asking how does Jesus prefer to be received?
(PS, I receive on the tongue always!!!
I am happy to see so many people receiving Jesus and wishing to do so respectfully and frequently, even if we don’t use the same method.
Do you think 500 years from now theologians will look back on some of the stuff we argue over in the same way we look at angels dancing on the head of a pin?
M
misericordie
Guest
First, it is not “the cup” it is the Chalice. Secondly, uh, no, faulty reasoning because the Host is placed on the tongue, where as the Chalice at times is shared by many people, and the chalice is touching the lips of many people.
Blessings.
M
misericordie
Guest
Again deo, great answer. I love your use of correct logic hear based on objectivity, not feelings, but what is reverent and true.
M
misericordie
Guest
um very relative and subjective. If that occured either two things occured, or a combination of two things: The priest did not place the host correctly, or the tongue was not out correctly(I mean no offense, please don’t dsee it that way, it is not my intention, and I am tring to be specific), or it was a combination of both. That’s also why I know priests who are using larger hosts too.
M
misericordie
Guest
Actually the use of EEME should be phased out. They are not needed in most parishes in the USA where there is always more(for the most part) than one priest, and if theire are two, one can come down to assist(as is the Church’s official teaching) by orders of the Pastor. I know many a Pastor who have ordered the other priest to come down at a certain time during Mass to help him distribute, vice versa, and the pastors have told me, the other priest can humbly assist this way, or they can start looking for another parish(if Diocesan clergy/secular clergy).:clapping:
N
NYer
Guest
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
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
S
SHEMP
Guest
I think that it is a lame argument not to receive communion on the tongue because of a worry of infection. I also think that it is a lame argument to not receive the Chalice (thanks for correcing me lest I sin.) because of fears of infection. I also think that it is lame for people to feel soooo strongly about whether your receive on the tongue or in the hand. These arguments about worrying that you will drop the host are also lame. I have seen many a shakey handed preist trying to aim for my tongue which was protruding as far out of my mouth as possible. I think that they often touch the tongue because of fears that they will miss and the host will drop. I think that the reason so many preists prefer to place the host into the hand is that it is easier and there is less likely to be error. Now I know that this is a “relative and subjective” argument but so is every argument in this thread. The absolute argument is that in this country both receiving on the tongue and in the hand are absolutely allowed. Any argument to the contrary is relative and subjective.
S
S_Corda
Guest
Wow! That’s great. I knew she (Mother Teresa) was beatified October 19, 2003, but I didn’t know she had been canonized.S. Corda, last I heard, she is officially a saint
D
deogratias
Guest
But I was in error - she was only beatified, not cononized, but I am sure she will be. Sorry for misleading you
G
Gloria_Patris77
Guest
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
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
- Status