Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christine85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the Latin Rite, not only is kneeling and receiving on the tongue the preferred method to receive the Eucharist, it is the normal method. All other methods are exceptions that must be approved.

Through his actions, our Holy Father has admitted that it is the most reverent posture to kneel and receive Eucharist on the tongue. Cardinal Francis Arinze, who served as Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who helped compile Redemptionis Sacramentum, has said this much as well. The current Prefect for the stated Congregation, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, has also stated that it is preferable to receive it on the tongue, while kneeling.

That being said, it is not bad to receive communion on the hand. In fact, it is perfectly acceptable to receive it on the hand, even from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, provided the bishops have been given permission for their parishes to do so. What most lay people don’t realize in regards to the Latin Rite, is that standing and receiving Eucharist in the hand has to be APPROVED by the Apostolic See. If not approved, or not yet taken to the Apostolic See, the faithful must kneel, and must receive on the tongue.

What most people in the English speaking world are use to is standing and receiving Holy Communion in the hand. It is the most common, but it is neither the normal nor the preferred method. In fact, a priest cannot refuse Holy Communion to the one person out of a thousand who chooses to kneel and receive Our Lord in his/her tongue, despite being use to the other forms of reception.

Here is Cardinal Arinze on the ways to receive Holy Communion.

And as ever, the wonderful Michael Voris on reception in the hand, and kneeling for Holy Communion.

God Bless!
The Communion in the Hand video just sums it all up. It’s Jesus, truly present! The priest’s hands are consecrated to touch the Body of Christ, not ours!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar :signofcross:
 
The Communion in the Hand video just sums it all up. It’s Jesus, truly present! The priest’s hands are consecrated to touch the Body of Christ, not ours!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar :signofcross:
This needs to be corrected. The priest’s hand are consecrated to *confect *the Eucharist. Simply touching a consecrated host has nothing to do with the reson for the consecration.

A deacon is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist and his hands are not consecrated.
 
The Communion in the Hand video just sums it all up. It’s Jesus, truly present! The priest’s hands are consecrated to touch the Body of Christ, not ours!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar :signofcross:
Here we go again.

A priests hands are consecrated for the confection of the Eucharist. Not for touching it. As was pointed out the deacon is also an ordinary minister of Communion.

As for the video. Dust particles do not contain the real presence.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

Notices the “as long as the Eucharistic species subsist”.

The Eucharistic species are bread and wine. Dust is not bread so it does not contain the real presence of Christ.
 
What’s funny is that pre-1960’s people were going out of their way to reverence the host. Nowadays the attitude seems to be: “What can we get away with?”

“It’s not forbidden” … “It was done in such a place and time” … Lots of clever legal arguments …

Then you find out about ‘Cranmer’s Godly Mass’ and such arguments don’t look so clever.

Keep emphasising ‘The Lord’s Supper’, ‘Liturgy of Word and Eucharist’, Community and Celebration and you have what you see in most Western parishes today.
 
What’s funny is that pre-1960’s people were going out of their way to reverence the host. Nowadays the attitude seems to be: “What can we get away with?”
Doing what the Church allows for is in no way an attitude of “What can we get away with”.
 
What most people in the English speaking world are use to is standing and receiving Holy Communion in the hand. It is the most common, but it is neither the normal nor the preferred method. In fact, a priest cannot refuse Holy Communion to the one person out of a thousand who chooses to kneel and receive Our Lord in his/her tongue, despite being use to the other forms of reception.
This may end up as another cultural battle. For example, I notice only half of those attending Spanish Masses receive, and of those who do, most receive on the tongue. And no one leaves right afterwards.
 
40.png
Liquid47:
The current Prefect for the stated Congregation, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, has also stated that it is preferable to receive it on the tongue, while kneeling.
It is important not to quote an internet idol without checking any further. CAF’s Jimmy Akin did just that and issued the correct teaching from Cardinal Llovera, which is not as MV stated. You can listen to the truth here.

In addition, Cardinal Arinze is also misquoted. His teaching clearly states that communion has been given a recognito by the Holy See that permits reception in the hand. He did not state a preference, other than that it is normative in other parts of the world, but not here in the US. His video to substantiate this can be found here and the pertinent remarks begin at 1:38.

I am dismayed at the way the Church is misrepresented, but thankfullly, many are listening and do not twist prelates’ words into a meaning that is not intended by them.
 
Doing what the Church allows for is in no way an attitude of “What can we get away with”.
I’m pretty sure I could make a terrible Mass if I staged one which simply did what the Church allowed i.e. which the Church did not explicitly forbid. Cowboy mass, anyone? In Scotland?

CITH started as an act of disobedience, then became normalised. If you want people to revere the host, why change to that? 🤷

“For all men” was also allowed, for 40 years. Then we had a correction.
 
I’m pretty sure I could make a terrible Mass if I staged one which simply did what the Church allowed i.e. which the Church did not explicitly forbid. Cowboy mass, anyone? In Scotland?

CITH started as an act of disobedience, then became normalised. If you want people to revere the host, why change to that? 🤷

“For all men” was also allowed, for 40 years. Then we had a correction.
Actually you could not make even a reverent Mass as you are not a priest.

What the Church allows and what it does not “explicitly forbid” is a huge gulf and a strawman.

As for CITH, that is an old and tired argument.

Why not allow people to make their own choices of that which the Church explicitly allows for.

I believe in the Church, I believe that it can not teach or allow error (actually this is taught explicitly by the Church).

So in light of that, I allow for what the Church teaches and allows.

I guess you feel that you know better.
 
It is important not to quote an internet idol without checking any further. CAF’s Jimmy Akin did just that and issued the correct teaching from Cardinal Llovera, which is not as MV stated. You can listen to the truth here.

In addition, Cardinal Arinze is also misquoted. His teaching clearly states that communion has been given a recognito by the Holy See that permits reception in the hand. He did not state a preference, other than that it is normative in other parts of the world, but not here in the US. His video to substantiate this can be found here and the pertinent remarks begin at 1:38.

I am dismayed at the way the Church is misrepresented, but thankfullly, many are listening and do not twist prelates’ words into a meaning that is not intended by them.
I just listened to the Podcast. The man that made the you tube video has misinterpreted the Church yes, but even Jimmy Akin agrees that yes the Cardinal is in favor of kneeling, though he is also ok with standing provided that adoration is shown. As people have stated according the Church teaching for the USA standing is the norm but kneeling is allowed also and is not to be discriminated against.
Jimmy further also adds he has nothing against reception of Communion whilst kneeling.
 
I believe in the Church, I believe that it can not teach or allow error (actually this is taught explicitly by the Church).
AFAIK, the Church does not teach CITH. It permits it. It does not promote it. It is a discipline. It is not a doctrine. And Arianism was a de-facto teaching for many Christians, along with all the other heresies, in their day. Until we had a correction.

Boy, I would really like to hear a bishop stand up and defend CITH, these days. Do people really think trying to re-create the Last, sorry, Lord’s Supper down to a ‘t’ is the way to go? After 2000 years of liturgical development? After how we’ve seen how it’s worked out for the protestants?

Everybody said the Emperor was beautifully dressed until a little boy shouted he was naked.
 
40.png
Christine85:
The man that made the you tube video has misinterpreted the Church yes, but even Jimmy Akin agrees that yes the Cardinal is in favor of kneeling, though he is also ok with standing provided that adoration is shown.
The man in the video is Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of CDW at the time of that recording. Are you saying he misinterpreted the Church?

And even if Jimmy Akin said the Cardinal is in favor of kneeling (I’ll have to find that to be sure of your words) the Cardinal nevertheless made it a point to explain Church teaching. That teaching is what is being misrepresented by those who would like to see the Church change Her discipline. They start thread after thread with innuendo inferring that very important prelates prefer way or another … whereas, they should be supporting **every **individual’s right to choose for themselves which manner of reception they prefer to use… without being excoriated by the traditionalists here at CAF.

Yes, the discipline is permitted. Until and IF it is changed, that right is given to every communicant in the US per Vatican recognito, and that was affirmed by Cardinal Arinze. I would not have the heart to look down upon anyone else or remonstrate with them for their manner of reception. Would you?
 
The man in the video is Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect of CDW at the time of that recording. Are you saying he misinterpreted the Church?

And even if Jimmy Akin said the Cardinal is in favor of kneeling (I’ll have to find that to be sure of your words) the Cardinal nevertheless made it a point to explain Church teaching. That teaching is what is being misrepresented by those who would like to see the Church change Her discipline. They start thread after thread with innuendo inferring that very important prelates prefer way or another … whereas, they should be supporting **every **individual’s right to choose for themselves which manner of reception they prefer to use… without being excoriated by the traditionalists here at CAF.

Yes, the discipline is permitted. Until and IF it is changed, that right is given to every communicant in the US per Vatican recognito, and that was affirmed by Cardinal Arinze. I would not have the heart to look down upon anyone else or remonstrate with them for their manner of reception. Would you?
Err, no actully if you look at the link the man I’m referring to in the video is Michael Voris
See the link - jimmyakin.com/2011/08/podcast-episode-007-is-michael-voris-right-about-kneeling.html
I wrote - that Michael Voris misinterpreted the Church. Please don’t get so worked up over something I didn’t write 🙂
 
Listen to the Podcast and you will hear for yourself Jimmy saying that the Cardinal is in favor of that style of reception of Communion but says that standing Communion is ok if done with Adoration. Plus it says what the Cardinal says in the interview. Do you think I’m making things up?
 
It’s up to people what they choose to do. As you probably know I advocate kneeling.
And so do many other people in the Church. There’s nothing wrong with that. No point in trying to deny what a Cardinal has said. I don’t see what the big deal is if he said that? Why try to cover it up and make out he didn’t mean what he actually said.
 
This is the last time I’m going to post here. So no one gets confused I want to clarify that I was misinformed when starting the thread. However I was made aware of what the Church teaches soon after and apologized for my fault.
I do advocate the way I take Communion, but I feel everyone is entitled to do what they feel best doing. I’m sorry if people think the Pope said it has to be a certain way but after reading the posts you will find that my initial posting is incorrect.
I cannot continue to go on with any of this as I am likely to be misunderstood.
Thankyou, God bless
 
I think many see the suggestion that only the priest is worthy to touch the body of Christ and that our hands are too unclean (but our bodies aren’t?) to handle the host before it goes into our body, a bit uncomfortable. Is this what it symbolizes? To some yes. In fact, the entire form before **symbolized the priest being so different from the people that they weren’t even a part of the consecration. **
For many, the church allowing them to participate and be a part of the body of Christ in this way was eye opening and freeing. For others it broke away from what they were used to. It’s going to be a difficult road, and many are going to agree or disagree as they feel led to do so. I myself have no problem with receiving either way, but am more comfortable with receiving via the hands. It’s what I have experienced all of my Catholic life (as short as that is).

I think either of them done with proper reverence is a beautiful thing, and either of them done without proper reverence is a horrible thing. I do think though, while I’m not a ‘fan’ of it, that having to pause and kneel and submit to the authority of the priest must be a powerful thing. So that does give me something to ponder. But then we are all part of the priesthood of the church, that is another thought to ponder.
The priest in the tridentine Mass is a leader of his flock. He is the ONLY one who should be dispensing the consecrated Host, he has ritually washed his fingers and thumb and then only those portion of his hand touch the Host. Certainly this is an inspiring moment for all, the priest all the more so knowing hi unworthiness. The congregation kneeling also is aware of their unworthiness, but joyful in receiving the Host.

I have attended a Mass during the week where our priest was very ill, he aplogised for being sick(!!!) and stated he would not distribute communion that day. We the congregation whislt saddened by this nevertheless received a spiritual communion in our attendance, and prayed fervently for the priest to finish Mass without distress. He did, and was back to his normal self in a day or 2.

The submission to the priest surprised me. When I receive communion I am submissive firstly to the great blessing of receiving the Host. Deference to the priest yes, but it is more about his Office rather than to the man.
 
The priest in the tridentine Mass is a leader of his flock. He is the ONLY one who should be dispensing the consecrated Host, he has ritually washed his fingers and thumb and then only those portion of his hand touch the Host. Certainly this is an inspiring moment for all, the priest all the more so knowing hi unworthiness. The congregation kneeling also is aware of their unworthiness, but joyful in receiving the Host.

I have attended a Mass during the week where our priest was very ill, he aplogised for being sick(!!!) and stated he would not distribute communion that day. We the congregation whislt saddened by this nevertheless received a spiritual communion in our attendance, and prayed fervently for the priest to finish Mass without distress. He did, and was back to his normal self in a day or 2.

The submission to the priest surprised me. When I receive communion I am submissive firstly to the great blessing of receiving the Host. Deference to the priest yes, but it is more about his Office rather than to the man.
The lavabo is for touching the host during consecration, when the priest calls down the Holy Spirit and the species of bread and wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ. The ritual purification is not for touching the host during distribution.

It has been pointed out many times on these forums that a deacon is an ordinary minister of communion. The deacon as an ordinary minister of communion is a 2000 year tradition which comes to us directly from scripture.

Does the deacon - transitional or permanent - distribute communion in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Does the deacon purify his fingers before he distributes? If the deacon does distribute communion in the EF and if he does not purify his fingers before he distributes, then it is clear that the lavabo is only for the consecration of the Eucharist and not it’s distribution. What about instituted acolytes? Do they distribute and do they purify their hands before?

If someone tells me that deacons and instituted acolytes purify their hands before distribution in the EF then I will stand corrected. Seriously, I will say I am sorry and do pennance of not drinking coffee for one day.

This is the same as the argument that only a priest should handle the Eucharist because only a priests hands are consecrated. The arguments for handling of the Eucharist by only consecrated or purified hands ignores altogether both scripture and the 2000 year long tradition of distribution by the diaconate.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top