Received on the tongue for the first time today

[maurin]

If the US general election was a single issue referendum on abortion then Catholics would be right to pick clear sides. But I was just making the point, presidential elections are about multiple issues so it’s not fair to criticise Catholics thinking about other things, eg their job or their children’s education.

It’s not fair to criticize Catholics when they openly disavow Church Teachings when they are not thinking about the Common Good? I’m a salesman. If I’m not selling, I don’t get paid. If I’m thinking about paying the bills, does that make it ok for me to misrepresent my product in order to get paid?

You implied that the murder of innocents is not a ‘substantive’ issue. You then compared abortion with war, and with the economy. While it is true that innocent people are killed in war and hurt by the economy, people responsible are generally held accountable for their crimes or misjudgments. The cruel murder of innocents in the womb is enshrined by law. And the ones responsible are regarded as champions of " basic human rights."

It certainly is a brave new world you are promoting, edders.

I think Catholics are entitled to vote for the Democrats if they want to. Being pro-choice is really a small part of their total policy package. You’re never going to agree 100% with any political party, but on the substantive issues like health care, the economy etc clearly a majority of Americans thought the Democrats deserved a chance. The Republicans are hardly the ‘pro life’ party they claim to be when you consider their record on the economy, war etc. Politics is a messy business and you shouldn’t judge people so harshly for making a complex decision.

 

[edders]

Well, the Church disagrees with you, which means you are wrong.

The Catholic Church in the US says you have to vote Republican? Wow, news to me…

 

[damooster]

If the US general election was a single issue referendum on abortion then Catholics would be right to pick clear sides. But I was just making the point, presidential elections are about multiple issues so it’s not fair to criticise Catholics thinking about other things, eg their job or their children’s education.

It wasn’t a single issue referendum, but the issue was big enough for people to vote against. People have voted against candidates that talked about major tax hikes; we can’t vote against someone for having a pro-abortion policy?

 

[savienu]

The Catholic Church in the US says you have to vote Republican? Wow, news to me…

The CATHOLIC CHURCH (she is not different depending on the country) says you can NOT vote for a pro-abortion candidate, regardless of their political affiliation.

Now I remember why I had taken time away from this place…Having to defend Church teachings to non-Catholics is one thing, but having to defend them to alleged “Catholics?” Scandalous.

 

[edders]

The CATHOLIC CHURCH (she is not different depending on the country) says you can NOT vote for a pro-abortion candidate, regardless of their political affiliation.

Now I remember why I had taken time away from this place…Having to defend Church teachings to non-Catholics is one thing, but having to defend them to alleged “Catholics?” Scandalous.

But then McCain was pretty pro-choice himself, wasn’t he? So what did you (one) do, not vote?

 

[Pat_the_elder]

I do know devout Catholic, pro-life individuals who receive in the hand. But they are the exception, not the rule.

Getting back to basics - just tell me where you get your information and the moral authority to make such statements. This is something plucked out of thin air - all you’re really saying is that everyone who doesnt follow what YOU perceive to be the truth is wrong. A well trodden route of dictatorship

 

[RazzsMom]

No, I was trying to make a point to pnewton, who seems to think everything in the American Catholic Church is hunky dory and that it isn’t sick. The Church is sick, but I don’t think it necessarily has to do with receiving in the hand (although I think that that can contribute to people’s lazy attitudes about Christ and his real presence, **I do know devout Catholic, pro-life individuals who receive in the hand. But they are the exception, not the rule.)/**QUOTE]

(Bold is mine.)

I thought I would only be reading this thread without commenting, but this statement made me sad - I disagree! My parish is the only one in my town of 40,000 people, with a Catholic population of about 5%. It is a wonderful parish with many, many devout and loving, faithful and faith-filled Catholics. I converted in 1983 and have felt so happy being “home” here, that when I recently moved out of the town, I continue to attend the same parish. (I currently live sort of in the middle of two parishes, so it didn’t really matter where I went.)

Many - dare I say MOST - of them receive in the hand. And some receive on the tongue - not only elderly who probably grew up with that method, but also some of the young adults and some teens.

I have received both ways, depending upon my health status at the time and whether I can hold my two hands properly to receive. I see quite a few people who “flip” back and forth in the manner in which they commune. As long as the reception is done reverently and properly, our priest doesn’t express any opinion nor try to persuade one way over the other.

As an EOM, I had more of an issue with the following:
* Receiving with one hand and “grabbing” the Body from the priest
* Holding out one’s hands AND sticking out the tongue! (I would place the Body on the tongue in that case since I was afraid the person would drop Him!)
* Taking the Body and then “dipping” It into the Blood (Intinction - which is forbidden)
* Receiving the Body in one’s hands and then WIPING HIS HANDS ON HIS PANTS!!! (I tried to see that guy after Mass to educate him, but he disappeared before I could find him!)

Also - someone asked if anyone had ever seen the priest drop a Host after it was consecrated (the Body)…Yes - I have seen it happen. The communicant picked It up and gave It to the priest who tucked It away in his hand. I saw the priest them consume It. I also saw the priest’s sleeve once knock a Host from the altar…the Deacon was there and picked up the Host and placed the Host on the altar apart from the others ---- the priest then consumed It later. I have also seen an EOM drop the Body and did the same as the priest. When I took instruction, we were told that if a Host fell to the floor to immediately pick It up and either consume It yourself or give to the priest to be consumed.

BTW: After I receive in my hands, I look at my palms for two reasons: First - to make sure no small bits adhered to my hands which would need to be consumed. Second - IN AWE at the fact that I have actually TOUCHED the Body of Christ! Why is that so bad??? Didn’t many people touch the Body of Christ while He was alive as a Human and were healed by His Touch? I feel very “healed” by my touching His Body in the Host!

 

[Pat_the_elder]

savienu;5425982:

No, I was trying to make a point to pnewton, who seems to think everything in the American Catholic Church is hunky dory and that it isn’t sick. The Church is sick, but I don’t think it necessarily has to do with receiving in the hand (although I think that that can contribute to people’s lazy attitudes about Christ and his real presence, I do know devout Catholic, pro-life individuals who receive in the hand. But they are the exception, not the rule.)/

QUOTE]

(Bold is mine.)

I thought I would only be reading this thread without commenting, but this statement made me sad. My parish is the only one in my town of 40,000 people, with a Catholic population of about 5%. It is a wonderful parish with many, many devout and loving, faithful and faith-filled Catholics. I convereted in 1983 and have felt so happy being “home” here, that when I recently moved out of the town, I continue to attend the same parish. (I currently live sort of in the middle of two parishes, so it didn’t seem to matter where I went.)

Many - dare I say MOST - of them receive in the hand. And some receive on the tongue - not only elderly who probably grew up with that method, but also some of the young adults and som teens.

I have received both ways, depending upon my health status at the time and whether I can hold my two hands properly to receive. I see quite a few people who “flip” back and forth in the manner in which they commune. As long as the reception is done reverently and properly, our priest doesn’t express any opinion nor try to persuade one way over the other.

As an EOM, I had more of an issue with the following:
* Receiving with one hand and “grabbing” the Body from the priest
* Holding out one’s hands AND sticking out the tongue! (I would place the Body on the tongue in that case since I was afraid the person would drop Him!)
* Taking the Body and then “dipping” It into the Blood (Intinction - which is forbidden)

Well said - I’m also a EOM and recently my 8yo daughter having just made her 1st communion mentioned that she and her friends had only recieved on the tongue but would it be okay to take the eucharist by hand. I phoned the PP and he said it was fine by him. I relayed this to my daughter. Upshot was at Sunday Mass I was EOM and had 6 or seven 8yo’s ALL with upturned hands and sticky out tongues! After Mass PP had a quick masterclass in reception of communion LOL

 

[maurin]

Getting back to basics - just tell me where you get your information and the moral authority to make such statements. This is something plucked out of thin air - all you’re really saying is that everyone who doesnt follow what YOU perceive to be the truth is wrong. A well trodden route of dictatorship

Savienu made no such claim.

you’re arguing against a straw-man of your own making, Pat. I won’t order you to tell me anything, the way you’ve ordered savienu, but I will ask you where yuo get any such authority to set up a straw man, and then argue against it? A well trodden route of modernist logic.

 

[savienu]

Savienu made no such claim.

you’re arguing against a straw-man of your own making, Pat. I won’t order you to tell me anything, the way you’ve ordered savienu, but I will ask you where yuo get any such authority to set up a straw man, and then argue against it? A well trodden route of modernist logic.

It’s okay, Maurin, I’ve already decided to take my leave from this thread, rather than argue and defend myself against baseless accusations. But I appreciate your taking up for me.

 

[SHW]

Priests sadly have no right to do that much less EMHCs.

Are you sure that they do not have this “right?” I was told they did. Do you have a directive which states that they do not have this right? Thanks!

Really? May I share a story with you that I experienced in the last few weeks and get your personal feelings on it?

I have long believed, to be honest, that a parish’s health can be crudely gauged by how many people receive Holy Communion on the tongue. The reason I believe this was communicated in a homily at my parish recently on the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Father homilized about how when he purifies the ciborium after the liturgy of the Eucharist, small particles of the consecrated Host float to the top of the water. He then proceeded to asked that if this happens from consecrated Hosts merely sitting in a ciborium, what did we think happened having Christ’s Body and Blood placed in our hand and then from our hand into our mouth? Why undoubtedly small particles of Christ’s Body end up on the floor.

In the short period of a 10 minute homily, on ONE Sunday, at ONE Mass, ONE priest educated numerous people and catechized about the TRUE presence of Christ. And guess what happened. EMHC who otherwise receive communion in the hand…received on the tongue. A significant and observable number of people receiving communion ALSO received that Sunday on the tongue than I have observed for countless Sundays past.

What spoke to these people’s heart? Where is the priest’s reasoning wrong about respecting the Body and Blood of Christ? And how is this not an example of catechizing about receiving on the tongue increases people’s appreciation for the true presence and respect for it?

I would say that you have a priest who is good at persuading his “captive 10 minute homily audience” to come over to his own preference as to how they should receive Holy Communion.

Sure, it is possible that crumbs are lost. **But, since the early church fathers distributed Holy Communion in the hand, don’t you think that they were aware of this possibility? **Knowing this possibility certainly did not change their method of distribution. How many adults in the real world are “fed” on their tongues by someone else? Since the early church fathers did not require it and probably never even thought of receiving it on the tongue, why do people think we must? And if communion on the tongue is made mandatory again, then we also need to go back to priests and deacons only distributing Holy Communion.

No one should be receiving Holy Communion who does not believe in the Divine Presence! This is where the true fault lies. Poor catechesis before reception of First Communion and lack of Real Presence reinforcement in continued catechesis from the pulpit is the cause.

Is this a new priest? If not, then why hasn’t he been preaching on this every year from the pulpit?

Well, you did ask for my thoughts…

 

[soflochristmas]

It matters because orthodox, devout Catholics do not blatantly disregard Church teachings. The American Church is very, very, sick. Denying that does not help anything.

Oh, and I’m not bashing The Church. The Church is divine, and she is the bride of Christ. I am DEFENDING the Church from those who continue to disregard and spit on Her and Her teachings. Or are you claiming that American Catholics are “the Church”? The Church is made up of people in full Communion with Her. To say that most American Catholics are not in union with Rome is not “bashing the Church.” It is “bashing” those who flaunt and disregard Church teaching. Do you honestly not see the difference?

Well said. It is a common tactic of dissenters to call white black and black white. It’s so absured to accuse those defending Church teaching as “attacking” the Church that it’s funny.

 

[soflochristmas]

I can’t believe you are still stuck on the “all” thing. Is it not possible the person was employing DELIBERATE exaggeration to make a point?

She’s stuck on the “all” thing in order to divert attention away from the real issue.

 

[savienu]

Well said. It is a common tactic of dissenters to call white black and black white. It’s so absured to accuse those defending Church teaching as “attacking” the Church that it’s funny.

I’ve heard the funniest things on these threads in the last few days. Traditionalists are now apparently not only “schismatics” but “heretics” and “Cafeteria Catholics.” But pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, contracepting Catholics are a-okay, and there is no sickness in the Church.

 

[soflochristmas]

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

Edit: I hadn’t realized that people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi were “Catholics in good standing” unless the Pope excommunicated them. I also hadn’t realized that 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama and are “Catholics in good standing.” I’m sorry, where does the Church teach one can be pro-abortion, pro-contraception and pro-gay marriage and still be a Catholic in good standing? The onus is on YOU. The Church tells us what we must do to be a faithful Catholic, to be CATHOLIC period. To deny that the majority of the American Church denies and disregards Church teaching is naive and ignorant. I’m having a hard time believing you really think the Church is a-ok. Please tell me you are just playing devil’s advocate?

If you support the dissention then it isn’t a problem…get it?

 

[savienu]

She’s stuck on the “all” thing in order to divert attention away from the real issue.

I just have a hard time believing that someone can’t see the problem in the Church today. Heck, I saw it as a kid, the hypocrisy, the irreverence, the do-one-thing-say-another attitude, the “check God at the door when you leave” attitude. I just didn’t know that that wasn’t REALLY what Catholicism was. It was only many years later, after I had left the Church and come back that I learned that the Catholic Faith truly didn’t begin with Vatican II.

 

[SHW]

Are you not supposed to receive on the tongue from a lay person? I have a young child whom I’m usually holding so its impractical for me to receive in my palm, while trying to keep her from landing on her head as she’s squirming, but I also always go to my Priest because he always blesses my child and I like that. But I’ve received on the tongue for nearly ten years too.

Since the priests are allowing EMs, you may receive from them. It is the priest who must account for any deviations from GIRM or other directives, not the layperson. I personally refuse to be an EM because I know that they are not necessary in my parish according to the “rules,” but I do not refuse to receive Holy Communion from them. Life is too short to waste time on inessentials; there are more serious things that need my attention.

You are not doing anything wrong. I think it is a wonderful idea to take your child up with you for a blessing and to receive Holy Communion on your tongue since this works best for you while holding your squirming child.

 

[soflochristmas]

I think Catholics are entitled to vote for the Democrats if they want to. Being pro-choice is really a small part of their total policy package. You’re never going to agree 100% with any political party, but on the substantive issues like health care, the economy etc clearly a majority of Americans thought the Democrats deserved a chance. The Republicans are hardly the ‘pro life’ party they claim to be when you consider their record on the economy, war etc. Politics is a messy business and you shouldn’t judge people so harshly for making a complex decision.

Sure…you’re entitled to sin too. And it isn’t pro “choice” to be for death or to allow it or to be complicit in it. And it isn’t a “small” part of life, Church teaching much less a “policy package”…it is an absolute moral evil fo the highest magnitude. Health care welfare for rich people and big government is opposed to the Church’s teachings of subsidiarity and at the very least a prudential judgement being “pro choice” is not.

Give it a rest…you may perhaps be able to pull the wool over other people’s eyes but not here.

 

[soflochristmas]

I agree with savienu here; we embarrassed the Church, and ourselves, during the last presidential election.

This apparent support for pro-abortion was evident during RCIA when I walked in to the classroom and saw a big poster of Obama and a sign reading “Yes we did!” The class then turned in to a big celebration party for him. Even though I couldn’t stomach it, I stayed (albeit in the corner by myself). I was the only “non-liberal” in that class, which baptized 4 people and Confirmed 6 more. That’s 9 pro-abortion people being accepted in to the Church as Catholics (I was one of the baptized but not pro-abortion).

Getting back to the original discussion, I don’t see how all of this pertains to Holy Communion in the hand. Are we saying that only liberals receive in the hand?

but where did the pope condemn, excommunicate, issue a “bull” against…name your favorite “fill in the blank” disciplinary action here? Come on…so what…the church is so healthy…nothings wrong…

Well not if you approve of the dissent,

 

[soflochristmas]

If the US general election was a single issue referendum on abortion then Catholics would be right to pick clear sides. But I was just making the point, presidential elections are about multiple issues so it’s not fair to criticise Catholics thinking about other things, eg their job or their children’s education.

But the Church has stated no issue rises to the same level as “life” issues. Did you miss that memo?