receiving communion on the tongue

[Newbie2]

Only to the extent where no risk to profanity (or indifference, for that matter) exists. Profanity is against divine law. There was a reason why the Church condemned the practice of the laity touching communion and still does in some places.

Agreed; good point.

[edited]

 

[centurionguard]

I don’t believe Vatican II had much to do with it directly; it was an insult that came somewhat later and not as a result of anything decided in the council. Furthermore, it’s only permitted in a limited area (Just the USA?) so it did not affect the universal Church.

Those nuns were somewhat inaccurate, because the deacon has always been allowed to handle the sacred species; as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion that is his ministry. But a deacon’s hands are not consecrated. Consecrating hands doesn’t have anything to do with being able to handle the sacred species.

Those nuns were somewhat inaccurate, because the deacon has always been allowed to handle the sacred species; as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion that is his ministry. But a deacon’s hands are not consecrated. Consecrating hands doesn’t have anything to do with being able to handle the sacred species

Sorry but respectfully your wrong on some points you made here. True the Deacon does not have consecrated hands like that of a priest. However; the Deacon is an Ordained Minister Calling an Ordained Deacon an ordinary minister of the Eucharistic would put him on the same level as lay EMHC which he is not.

Remember a Deacon is an Ordained Minister. He has been granted ecclesiastical power to exercise all the sacraments of the Church except the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance, and Confirmation.

Peace
Chris

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry but respectfully your wrong on some points you made here. True the Deacon does not have consecrated hands like that of a priest. However; the Deacon is an Ordained Minister Calling an Ordained Deacon an ordinary minister of the Eucharistic would put him on the same level as lay EMHC which he is not.

Actually, ordinary minister is the correct term. Ordinary means “the norm”.

Remember a Deacon is an Ordained Minister. He has been granted ecclesiastical power to exercise all the sacraments of the Church except the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance, and Confirmation.

He also cannot give Anointing of the Sick nor can he Ordain another person.

Basically the two Sacraments that a Deacon can “give” is the same two Sacraments that even a lay person can administer. Baptism can be given by anyone, even a heretic or atheist. And the Sacrament of marriage is given by the spouses to one another, and all is needed is a witness of the Church, which normally is a priest or bishop but can also be a deacon. And in certain cases, the Church may grant even a lay person to witness a marriage on her behalf.

 

[centurionguard]

Actually, ordinary minister is the correct term. Ordinary means “the norm”.

He also cannot give Anointing of the Sick nor can he Ordain another person.

Basically the two Sacraments that a Deacon can “give” is the same two Sacraments that even a lay person can administer. Baptism can be given by anyone, even a heretic or atheist. And the Sacrament of marriage is given by the spouses to one another, and all is needed is a witness of the Church, which normally is a priest or bishop but can also be a deacon. And in certain cases, the Church may grant even a lay person to witness a marriage on her behalf.

Thank you for clarifying the Sacrament (“Anointing of the Sick”) ewtn.com/expert/answers/anointing_of_the_sick.htm

Only a Bishop can Ordain a priest or deacon

 

[Newbie2]

Constantine is usually pretty up on things.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I don’t know…it just seems to me that many Catholics today have become like Doubting Thomas saying (“I will not believe unless I can put my finger in the holes of His hands, feet and side”).

Peace
Chris

I’m glad you presume to know what is in the hearts of those of us who receive CITH…

If you want to receive on the tongue…fine…but please don’t read into the reasons that others may receive differently. That’s making a big assumption.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine is usually pretty up on things.

Yes, I admit it, I’m a nerd

 

[ProVobis]

Those nuns were somewhat inaccurate, because the deacon has always been allowed to handle the sacred species; as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion that is his ministry.

True but in pre-Vatican II, there were no “permanent” deacons. They would have all been transitional deacons, who would eventually become priests. Today both permanent and transitional deacons administer communion in both forms.

 

[ProVobis]

Ordinary means “the norm”.

Or “regular” or “expected” would be my definition in this context.

There are a lot of definitions (and meanings) of the word. It can get confusing.

1. The usual or normal condition or course of events: Nothing out of the ordinary occurred.
2. Law
   a. A judge or other official with immediate rather than delegated jurisdiction.
   b. The judge of a probate court in some states of the United States.
3. often Ordinary Ecclesiastical
   a. The part of the Mass that remains unchanged from day to day.
   b. A division of the Roman Breviary containing the unchangeable parts of the office other than the Psalms.
   c. A cleric, such as the residential bishop of a diocese, with ordinary jurisdiction over a specified territory.
4. Heraldry One of the simplest and commonest charges, such as the bend and the cross.
5. Chiefly British
   a. A complete meal provided at a fixed price.
   b. A tavern or an inn providing such a meal.

[Middle English ordinarie, from Old French, from Latin ordinrius, from ord, ordin-, order; see ar- in Indo-European roots.]

ordinary ˈɔːdənrɪ]
adj

1. of common or established type or occurrence
2. familiar, everyday, or unexceptional
3. uninteresting or commonplace
4. (Law) having regular or ex officio jurisdiction an ordinary judge
5. (Mathematics) Maths (of a differential equation) containing two variables only and derivatives of one of the variables with respect to the other
   n pl -naries
6. a common or average situation, amount, or degree (esp in the phrase out of the ordinary)
7. a normal or commonplace person or thing
8. (Law) Civil law a judge who exercises jurisdiction in his own right
9. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (usually capital) an ecclesiastic, esp a bishop, holding an office to which certain jurisdictional powers are attached
10. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) RC Church
    a. the parts of the Mass that do not vary from day to day Compare proper [13]
    b. a prescribed form of divine service, esp the Mass
11. (Engineering / Automotive Engineering) the US name for penny-farthing
12. (History / Heraldry) Heraldry any of several conventional figures, such as the bend, the fesse, and the cross, commonly charged upon shields
13. (Historical Terms) History a clergyman who visited condemned prisoners before their death
14. Brit obsolete
    a. a meal provided regularly at a fixed price
    b. the inn providing such meals
    in ordinary Brit (used esp in titles) in regular service or attendance physician in ordinary to the sovereign
    [C16 (adj) and C13 (some n senses): ultimately from Latin ordinārius orderly, from ordō order]
    Collins

In the Latin sense, it appears to mean “more regulatory” or “arranged” or “in good order.”

 

[PAboy57]

I have been receiving CITH for quite awhile but have just started to receive COTT.

It’s a personal choice I agree, however it now makes me feel better. I guess I never felt that I was worthy, and I’m just talking about me, to touch the host. Having spent time away from the Church probably adds to my guilt.

While we still have communion rails I’m suprised our parish hasn’t started using them. We have an older population and so many continue COTT. That may have also been an influence too.

I’ll say our bishop was on the liberal side and promoted new things. He is retiring and our new bishop is like 55 so I can’t wait to see what his viewpoints are.

 

[Brendan]

True but in pre-Vatican II, there were no “permanent” deacons. They would have all been transitional deacons, who would eventually become priests. .

That is actually not true. There were religious orders who ordained men to the diaconate, with no intent on anyone’s part that they be eventually ordained as priests. They were ordained to serve as deacons and that was their charism in life.

The Dominicans were particularly known for this, but is was not unheard of in the Fransicans ( St. Francis of Assisi, for example).

Less so among the monastics (as opposed to the mendicant) orders. Fewer need for deacons in a monastary.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Annabelle Marie
wow…some of us don’t have the luxury of receiving only from a priest…lucky you…

Since you claimed in a later post that you were being sarcastic to me here…I *realllly *don’t understand why
Am I to apologize because I attend a parish with a priest? That seems to be the jist of your sarcasm.
In my parish, one has the choice of recieving from either the priest or an EMC. I choose the priest.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Since you claimed in a later post that you were being sarcastic to me here…I *realllly *don’t understand why
Am I to apologize because I attend a parish with a priest? That seems to be the jist of your sarcasm.
In my parish, one has the choice of recieving from either the priest or an EMC. I choose the priest.

I am just tired of the people who think it is somehow holier to recieve from a priest…I can only imagine if everyone decided that they would only receive from a priest…we would back up into the next Mass. Especially when I’ve read comments from Fr. Vincent Sherpa that we are to concentrate on WHO we are receiving not from Whom. If everyone was crossing back and forth…imagine the chaosis…but most of us don’t so you can only receive from a priest…

So…if you could only receive Jesus from an EMHC…would you pass him by?

Sure…I am secretly happy when our priest chooses our side…but if he doesn’t…I figure there is someone over on the other side that needs an extra blessing today.

 

[Lapey]

Actually, ordinary minister is the correct term. Ordinary means “the norm”.

He also cannot give Anointing of the Sick nor can he Ordain another person.

Basically the two Sacraments that a Deacon can “give” is the same two Sacraments that even a lay person can administer. Baptism can be given by anyone, even a heretic or atheist. And the Sacrament of marriage is given by the spouses to one another, and all is needed is a witness of the Church, which normally is a priest or bishop but can also be a deacon. And in certain cases, the Church may grant even a lay person to witness a marriage on her behalf.

Remeber the word “grave”. A lay person, even an unbaptised athiest can baptise in grave situations, he is not the ordinary minister of baptism, the deacon, priest and bishop are.

A lay person cannot schedule and perform a baptism at a church parish and be considered licit or valid.

 

[roadsend]

…

A lay person cannot schedule and perform a baptism at a church parish and be considered licit or valid.

Valid - yes.
Licit - probably not.

 

[Aramis]

Remeber the word “grave”. A lay person, even an unbaptised athiest can baptise in grave situations, he is not the ordinary minister of baptism, the deacon, priest and bishop are.

A lay person cannot schedule and perform a baptism at a church parish and be considered licit or valid.

Depends entirely upon the circumstances for licity; in some remote parishes, there is no cleric, and a sickly child may be publicly baptized in the parish by the administrative assistant after a phone call to the bishop, rather than waiting up to several weeks for the circuit priest.

Validity is entirely based upon having the correct intent (To unite the recipient to the church and the Trinity, and remit their sins, and make them Christian), using water and the correct formula: “I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Remeber the word “grave”. A lay person, even an unbaptised athiest can baptise in grave situations, he is not the ordinary minister of baptism, the deacon, priest and bishop are.

A lay person cannot schedule and perform a baptism at a church parish and be considered licit or valid.

Valid, definitely. Licit, according to Canon Law a catechist may baptize if an ordained person is not available within a reasonable amount of time. You’ll be surprised how many remote communities are out there, or mission areas where the missionaries are lay.

 

[Deckie]

From a hygiene point of view,placing on the hand is a lot better,but may encourage misuse
by some.I think hygiene is the reason why the silly shaking of hands after the Lamb of God has recently been done away with too

 

[Lapey]

Depends entirely upon the circumstances for licity; in some remote parishes, there is no cleric, and a sickly child may be publicly baptized in the parish by the administrative assistant after a phone call to the bishop, rather than waiting up to several weeks for the circuit priest.

Validity is entirely based upon having the correct intent (To unite the recipient to the church and the Trinity, and remit their sins, and make them Christian), using water and the correct formula: “I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

I agree with you, but again the canon says, “grave” doesn’t it? A sickly child in a remote location with no available cleric and the bishop’s permission would satify the canon, don’t you think?

 

[Lapey]

Valid, definitely. Licit, according to Canon Law a catechist may baptize if an ordained person is not available within a reasonable amount of time. You’ll be surprised how many remote communities are out there, or mission areas where the missionaries are lay.

Very much like the preivious post, I agree.