Quick help needed - proving it's okay to receive on the tongue

[Uxor]

Tough to understand these liberals. Trent was not infallible but receiving in the hand is. What’s wrong with this picture?

I’m sure you as I agree with the Pope…He didn’t agree with it.

Pope John Paul Dominicae coenae 1980
How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.4

unique dignity of the priesthood

 

[chrisg93]

The Scripture says “Jesus broke the bread and GAVE IT TO THEM”.

I believe that Communion in the Hand is what Jesus instructed us to do by his example and that is what he expects us to do.

I was an altar boy in the 60’s and remember assisting with thousands of “on the tounge”. I was never impressed by its holiness. When “in the hand” started I said to myself “this is the way Jesus meant it to be”.

 

[BobP123]

The Scripture says “Jesus broke the bread and GAVE IT TO THEM”.

I believe that Communion in the Hand is what Jesus instructed us to do by his example and that is what he expects us to do.

I was an altar boy in the 60’s and remember assisting with thousands of “on the tounge”. I was never impressed by its holiness. When “in the hand” started I said to myself “this is the way Jesus meant it to be”.

You’re probably right but these were His Apostles, His first priests. And even here, one received unworthily as his agenda was not one of reverence. (His name: Judas)

 

[Rykell]

Uxor:

I’m sure you as I agree with the Pope…He didn’t agree with it.

Pope John Paul Dominicae coenae 1980
How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.4

I’m not sure where I saw this quoted recently on the forum, but I did remember that someone took it out of context to justify their own opinion. Here is the correct wording of the document which opposes what you wrote above:

Section 11:

This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
(snip)

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.

(The following is the important wording from that document that was omitted.)

It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Someone like that should not be teaching RCIA.

Thank you for saying what many of us feel. GOD BLESS

 

[Aramis]

Thank you for saying what many of us feel. GOD BLESS

AMEN!

 

[Uxor]

---

I’m not sure where I saw this quoted recently on the forum, but I did remember that someone took it out of context to justify their own opinion. Here is the correct wording of the document which opposes what you wrote above:

The quote I gave came from a passage of John Paul II’l Dominicae coenae…You could of look up the document yourself…I didn’t get this off of any forum…this I obtained from EWTN…

one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them, How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist

From EWTN:
the purpose of Dominicae coenae as a whole is to stress the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist, the sublime and unique dignity of the priesthood, and the urgency of ordained men remaining faithful to the special tasks of their state, above all regarding the worthy veneration and handling of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

as far as lay people…it says…“Just Need”

 

[mike182d]

My whole problem with reception in the hand is that I have a hard time understand why it was implemented in the first place. I mean, there might be nothing wrong with it, per se, but that’s not a legitimate reason to implement something.

To change something is to imply improvement over something and I have yet to hear a cogent argument for the change - as opposed to a mere shrug of the shoulders and a nonchalant “eh, why not?”

 

[KathleenElsie]

Poor teaching of our Faith is not new. I was estranged from Holy Mother Church because I did not understand some of her teachings. As a young woman alone in San Francisco in the mid 1960’s I was told that many of the teachings I followed as a child were not what Catholics believed. I became confused and to be honest scared.

It took me 15 years to rediscover that what I was taught as a young teen was the full truth. The Catholic Church was,is and forever will be the truth and I have studied and learned and reverted and I will forever regret the time away from Holy Mother Church. For this was a time in the desert separated from God. My priest said I needed to forgive myself for this time of emptiness and I have. But I still regret that my training in the Catholic Church was so poor as to allow me to question the Truth. My children and grandchildren will never be in this position as long as I am alive to teach and show then the ways of Holy Mother Church.

I ask for all of your prayers that I am be strong enough to follow the teaching of our faith and to be a good example to others.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You’re probably right but these were His Apostles, His first priests. And even here, one received unworthily as his agenda was not one of reverence. (His name: Judas) **The Apostolic and Patristic Church practiced communion in the hand. So the Apostles and Fathers must not have really understood that they weren’t supposed to offer it to the laity, I suppose. And it is not clear from the Gospel accounts that Judas received Communion at all. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The quote I gave came from a passage of John Paul II’l Dominicae coenae…You could of look up the document yourself…I didn’t get this off of any forum…this I obtained from EWTN…

one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them, How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist

From EWTN:
the purpose of Dominicae coenae as a whole is to stress the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist, the sublime and unique dignity of the priesthood, and the urgency of ordained men remaining faithful to the special tasks of their state, above all regarding the worthy veneration and handling of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

as far as lay people…it says…“Just Need”

All the same, Pope John Paul II permitted the indult of Communion in the hand and Pope Benedict has even extended it. Very simple, really. If you don’t wish to receive in the hand, then don’t.

 

[Cor_Jesu]

All the same, Pope John Paul II permitted the indult of Communion in the hand and Pope Benedict has even extended it. Very simple, really. If you don’t wish to receive in the hand, then don’t.

Pope John Paul II permitted many questionable practices.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pope John Paul II permitted many questionable practices.

But no abuse, as the disciplines of the Church enjoy infallibility. You don’t have to like it, but that’s Church teaching.

 

[Aramis]

All the same, Pope John Paul II permitted the indult of Communion in the hand and Pope Benedict has even extended it. Very simple, really. If you don’t wish to receive in the hand, then don’t.

If a lay minister refuses you communion on the tongue, complain to the pastor.

If a priest refuses you communion on the tongue, complain to the Vicar General and/or the Bishop.

Be patient, and polite, but firm. Work up the hierarchy if needed.

Be prepared to document.

 

[Cor_Jesu]

But no abuse, as the disciplines of the Church enjoy infallibility. You don’t have to like it, but that’s Church teaching.

Hmmmm…His Greatness also permitted half-naked, bare-breasted native women to play active roles in papal Masses, among other peculiarities. Is that also part of Church teaching?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If a lay minister refuses you communion on the tongue, complain to the pastor.

If a priest refuses you communion on the tongue, complain to the Vicar General and/or the Bishop.

Be patient, and polite, but firm. Work up the hierarchy if needed.

Be prepared to document.

There is also a canon law society that will help the laity when priests run over them. I can’t remember the name, however. Oftentimes, a letter from a lawyer is enough to chill everyone out (even a canon lawyer).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hmmmm…His Greatness also permitted half-naked, bare-breasted native women to play active roles in papal Masses, among other peculiarities. Is that also part of Church teaching?

More of this rubbish. If you do a search of the fora or google it, you’ll find plenty of references to this and the answer:

The Pope didn’t plan that liturgy in Papua, New Guinea. He didn’t plan any of the liturgies when he went abroad. Even his vestments were usually provided and then kept in museums and archives after he left. If you tour to the California missions of San Fernanado and Carmel, you’ll find them on display, as well as details of the papal trips. Who plans these shindigs? The national bishops conferences who host the Holy Father. So I’m sure he was just as dumbfounded as anyone when the lady in question, sans brasiere, rose to read the Epistle. I think it was terribly Christ-like of him to sit there politely and not yell, “Hey, you cheap tart, put something on!” If you want to indict anyone for this incident, go after the bishops’ conferences in the locale in question. And I strongly suggest you stop getting your info. from dubious sites like Marian Horvat’s little “let’s play fast and loose with the truth” website. They don’t bother telling the whole story.

 

[Cor_Jesu]

JKirkLVNV:
JKirkLVNV, you said that disciplinary laws are infallible; that is, whatever the Pope permits is infallible. I am simply forcing you to be logically consistent. Pope John Paul II permitted this woman to participate in the Mass and have an active role in it; and believe it or not, JKirk, John Paul II or anyone else could have respectfully and tactfully ask for the woman not to participate in the Mass, WITHOUT calling her a “cheap tart”! I don’t even know who Marian Horvat is, JKirk; however, there is a great article from “This Rock” magazine of all places, written by a priest, explaining why John Paul II will likely not go down in history as “the Great”, and he includes this Mass as well as many other Masses John Paul II presided over as evidence. I believe it’s from 2003 (John Paul II was still Pope), feel free to search it in the archives from the Catholic Answers main website. You lay the blame at the feet of the bishop’s conferences…who appointed all those wonderful bishops, JKirk? And FYI, it wasn’t the bishops who planned it, John Paul II actually had a personal liturgist working for him who planned all the papal masses, and this liturgist was permitted to plan the papal masses throughout JP2’s pontificate in spite of this and many other travesties (or as you would call them, infallible disciplinary decisions) that occurred.

But the point is, John Paul II did approve of this, and you stated that whatever the pope approves of is “infallible”, and I’m holding you to your statement. Care to retract?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV, you said that disciplinary laws are infallible; that is, whatever the Pope permits is infallible. I am simply forcing you to be logically consistent. Pope John Paul II permitted this woman to participate in the Mass and have an active role in it; and believe it or not, JKirk, John Paul II or anyone else could have respectfully and tactfully ask for the woman not to participate in the Mass, WITHOUT calling her a “cheap tart”! I don’t even know who Marian Horvat is, JKirk; however, there is a great article from “This Rock” magazine of all places, written by a priest, explaining why John Paul II will likely not go down in history as “the Great”, and he includes this Mass as well as many other Masses John Paul II presided over as evidence. I believe it’s from 2003 (John Paul II was still Pope), feel free to search it in the archives from the Catholic Answers main website. You lay the blame at the feet of the bishop’s conferences…who appointed all those wonderful bishops, JKirk? And FYI, it wasn’t the bishops who planned it, John Paul II actually had a personal liturgist working for him who planned all the papal masses, and this liturgist was permitted to plan the papal masses throughout JP2’s pontificate in spite of this and many other travesties (or as you would call them, infallible disciplinary decisions) that occurred.

But the point is, John Paul II did approve of this, and you stated that whatever the pope approves of is “infallible”, and I’m holding you to your statement. Care to retract?

The disciplines of the Church enjoy a negative infallibility: they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. LOOK IT UP.

I think you’ll find that the Vatican liturgist is resp. for the Pope’s liturgies in the Holy See and in Rome, IF YOU BOTHER TO INVESTIGATE. The bishops’ conferences are responsible for the public liturgies on the papal trips, down to who will receive Communion from the Holy Father. Write one of the conferences if you don’t believe it.

I can’t help what a priest said in an article, but you’re investing in HIM, apparently, an infallibility that the Church claims for her discipline, but which you deny (not in keeping with Catholic teaching, that). This ISN’T about John Paul II’s greatness (only time will tell…Pope BENEDICT is the one who has refered to him as John Paul the Great), this is about that disciplinary infallibility. LOOK…IT…UP! And while you’re at it, look into how bishops are selected. John Paul II also picked Bishop Bruskewitz, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Gomez, Bishop Vasa, etc.

So, no retraction. But we’re deviating from the thread. This is about communion in the hand and whether or not it’s a sacrilege or an abuse. THAT’s why I brought up the pope in the first place. What the Church proposes or imposes as a discipline cannot lead the faithful into impiety, per the Council of Trent.

 

[Cor_Jesu]

The disciplines of the Church enjoy a negative infallibility: they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. LOOK IT UP.

Exactly, JKirkLVNV…they enjoy a negative infallibility, meaning they cannot impose a discipline that would lead the faithful to impiety. This does not mean they cannot allow or permit such a discipline. LOOK…IT…UP!!! In case you’ve forgotten, your point originally was about communion in the hand; you tried to suggest that it enjoyed some sort of infallibility simply because John Paul II allowed it–well, you’re WRONG. Communion in the hand was simply permitted, never imposed, meaning it is not an infallible discipline as you suggested.

A few “conservative” bishops here and there (which are really conservative only by NO standards) don’t make up for the fact that there were many more liberal, modernist bishops who did much to harm the faith who were knowingly appointed by John Paul II.

P.S. I couldn’t help but notice, looking over your past posts, that you sure spend a lot of time in the Traditional Catholic forum for someone who does not consider themself to be a “Traditional Catholic”