P
- Status
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
You don’t genuflect in the Communion procession.
But surely genuflecting as a sign of reverence before receiving does not count, right? After all, you’re receiving communion, not “in procession” at that moment.
T
Tommy_Joe
Guest
Forgive me,…I’m loving all this confusion!This is what you get when you take the communion rails out and let everyone do what they think is right.
Confusion? We deserve it.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Why not just follow the instructions as put forth in your diocese for receiving the Eucharist instead of adding your own preferences. It is called obedience I believe.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
Ha, you’ve never met one of my diocese’s bishop. He’s not one for rules… or rubrics… or canon law.
Amen.
This is what you get when you take the communion rails out and let everyone do what they think is right.
Confusion? We deserve it.
M
mullenpm
Guest
Skatepixie, what do you mean by:
“even when I attend a Novus Ordo”
That is so insulting like we who have the Novus Ordo at our church are something less than “Catholic.”
What an incredible thing to say. The Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is every bit as legitimate as any other form.
I take the Holy Eucharist on my tongue because that is the way I have always done it. I would never place the Host in my hand. Talk about being “unhealthy” as a previous poster said taking the host on the tongue was.
I am getting a little tired of all the comments about the Novus Ordo Mass and I am definitely sick of it being called the NO Mass (inferring that it is not a Mass at all).
Please no comments about the initials. Call it the Novus Ordo Mass - don’t use text message initials for everything.:knight2: :knight2:
“even when I attend a Novus Ordo”
That is so insulting like we who have the Novus Ordo at our church are something less than “Catholic.”
What an incredible thing to say. The Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is every bit as legitimate as any other form.
I take the Holy Eucharist on my tongue because that is the way I have always done it. I would never place the Host in my hand. Talk about being “unhealthy” as a previous poster said taking the host on the tongue was.
I am getting a little tired of all the comments about the Novus Ordo Mass and I am definitely sick of it being called the NO Mass (inferring that it is not a Mass at all).
Please no comments about the initials. Call it the Novus Ordo Mass - don’t use text message initials for everything.:knight2: :knight2:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
There’s nothing to feel guilty about. Right now, in the United States, it is permitted to receive the Eucharist in the hand or on the tongue. In a very real sense, for the average Catholic layperson, the history, the theology, and the fittingness of either approach really does not matter. The fact remains that, at this moment in history, either way is allowed by the Church, and thus no one should condemn you or criticize you or make you feel guilty for doing something the Church Herself allows you to do.Thank you for all of your responses. I felt a bit guilty for my post as if perhaps my reasonings were immature. I have had some priests look at me strangely or with disapproval and some seemed perfectly fine with my hands. I have always received the Body of Christ like this and thought it was accepted practice until I noticed others receiving on the tongue and reading certain literature. I see about a 50-50 mix of people in every Cathedral I have been in either receiving on the tongue or in their hands, so I was never sure which would be correct or if things were fine the way I have always received the Eucharist. I think maybe my fear is that I feel so vulnerable and strange with my mouth open like that…so I have always felt more comfortable with it being placed in my hand. For some reason I feel bad about that.
Of course, if you can’t shake the feeling, maybe that means God is calling you to try receiving on the tongue. That’s what He did for me. I discovered that, after a very short time, it became second nature to receive on the tongue. If you can get past those first few times, it feels much less awkward (at least, that was my experience). Just don’t turn into one of those people that gets judgmental towards all those who receive in the hand.
We do not genuflect after receiving the Eucharist. First of all, in many instances, the tabernacle is empty at that point, because all of the consecrated hosts have been taken out to be distributed. Second of all, think of it this way: At that moment, Jesus is not just in the tabernacle, but He is also inside of you. Our focus should be on the fact that Jesus is inside of us, not on genuflecting to wherever Jesus is outside of us.
A sign of the cross, however, seems perfectly fine and quite appropriate (although I don’t have any citations of Church documents to back that up, it’s just my preference
).
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I just want to back up this post 100%. There is nothing in any liturgical documents that asks for people to genuflect while walking past the chalice after just having received the Eucharist. It’s a well-meaning pious addition, but not a very prudent one. I, for one, can be extremely clumsy. If I happened to close my eyes for a moment of reverence after receiving the host, I can very easily picture myself being the one to trip over the person in front of me who suddenly decides to genuflect. Even if no one was injured, think of the possibility of falling into the EMHC and knocking over the chalice.
Not a chance I would want to take…
M
mangy_dog
Guest
It’s interesting you should make the corrolatioin of the “baby bird” recieving food from the parent bird.
Your discomfort with one form or the other should not be an impediment to recieviing the Body of Christ.
I believe that if it were a serious matter to be addressed by the Church - it would be looked at and pondered over. And we as good catholics would abide by the Magisteriums decision.
I also believe that all this talk and talk and talk about how to properly recieve communion ( and please don’t get me wrong, I recieve it on the tongue) is detracting from the sacrament of confession. We as catholics (on and off) are bad for not going to confession and then going to the altar and sticking our tongues out at the Blessed Sacrament.
My dear brother, don’t get wrapped around the axle about the form that you use. But make sure that the form that you use is in full and complete respect and devotion to the True and Real Presence.
I have seen bad reception on the tongue and I’ve seen bad reception in the hands.
Confession - Communion…in that order.
D
dandn5000
Guest
Just do whatever feels more comfortable to you, and do it as reverently as you can.
And whatever you do, do NOT feel awkward about receiving Communion on the tongue if need be. It bugs me when people holding a child in their arms takes one hand away to receive Communion with. Either put down the child or receive on the tongue!
And whatever you do, do NOT feel awkward about receiving Communion on the tongue if need be. It bugs me when people holding a child in their arms takes one hand away to receive Communion with. Either put down the child or receive on the tongue!
M
MrS
Guest
You don’t genuflect in the Communion procession.
This has been debated before.
The Communion line is not a “procession”. But then, definitions are abundant with lots of the words we use or misuse.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
It is a personal choice in how you want to receive. The current way is to receive by the hand, but some still choose to receive by the tongue. Neither way is better than another, it comes down to personal choice. You can still receive in the hand with no problems.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
That simply isn’t true. ONE OF THE CURRENT ways to receive is in the hand, another on the tongue, another kneeling. They are all current. Why try to make one seem more “modern” and the other “old” and “antiquated.” The way you wrote seems to indicate some harsh feelings towards what is traditional.
T
Tommy_Joe
Guest
I agree,…and I might ask;Considering what the Holy Father has requested recently, wouldn’t reception on the tongue and on the knees be considered more the more “modern” way to receive?
R
rlg94086
Guest
While it is true that you don’t need to genuflect while passing by the chalice, we are to show revererence before receicing. It is completely licit to genuflect (instead of bowing) before receiving the Precious Blood. That would not be “extra stuff.”
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I used to receive in the hand. I began receiving on the tongue a year ago this past Gaudate Sunday as a result of all the arguments about it on these fora. I said I would do so for a year and I continue to do so as an act of self-denial, as I would prefer to receive in the hand, and as sort of a prayer that these divisions in the Church (hand vs. tongue, EF vs. OF, etc.) will end. I have noticed no particular increase in devotion or reverence within my own soul and I don’t buy the argument that one is inherently more reverent than the other (particularly when both are authorized by the Church).
To the poster that says that they’ve never seen a priest (and I assume an EMHC) touch anyone’s mouth: that has not been my experience. It has not happened the majority of the time that I’ve received Holy Communion, but it has happened enough that it is noticeable. I make note of that as it is the precise reason that I would prefer to receive in the hand.
To Belgian Waffles: The act of rec. Holy Communion in the hand by a minister of Holy Communion, either ordinary or extraordinary, is not “taking” Holy Communion. At least, it is not regarded as such by the Church. “Taking” Holy Communion would be to pick up the Most Sacred Body or the Chalice of the Most Precious Blood from the Altar and consuming it. When one receives either of the Sacred Species from a minster, one is doing just that, “receiving.” The Church forbids “taking,” but permits reception in the hand of the MSB and the handing of the Chalice of the MPB to the communicant. What the Church permits is licit according to Her own norms.
Sancte Joseph raised an uncharitable and incredibly triumphalistic (basically “nyah, nyah, nyah!”), but highly pertinent question: “Lets just wait then until The Pope corrects this then…and then your argument will be what…the pope is wrong?”
No, the pope won’t be wrong. This is a matter of discipline and frankly it is morally neutral, so he won’t be “right” either. He’ll simply be exercising his lawful and legitimate authority (and only about a year ago, the indult permitting Holy Communion in the hand was extended to Poland, under this very pope). Neither will he be “correcting” anything. While the Holy Father seems laudably determined to restore a greater sense of reverence to our Mass, as LilyM pointed out, per the Canons of Trent, no discipline of the Church in the administration of Her Sacraments and rites can lead the faithful to impiety. The Holy Father wants a greater sense of reverence restored to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That is obviously “right.” His prudential wisdom may dictate that one of the ways to do this will be by removing the indult. He may or may not be “right,” but whatever he decides and promulgates by his legitimate authority, either to end the indult or to continue it, we can trust at the very least not to lead the faithful to impiety.
Personally, prudentially, my own petty concerns aside, I think it would probably be a good idea to end it. I’ve had to twice leave the choir loft and chase someone down because they’ve carried the Most Sacred Body away from the minister of HC (one was a lady who knelt before the Shrine of the Divine Mercy before she consumed it and the other was a child who did not know they were to consume it immediately before the minister). I think reception on the tongue would preclude that to a degree (though the Sacred Host has been secreted away for nefarious purposes before the indult was ever granted). I personally would prefer to see intinction used, which precludes reception in the hand all the way around. The maxim is this, however, *abusus non tollit usam, *the abuse does not abbrogate the proper use. We’ve been given a legitimate liberty of choice by the Holy See. No one should feel guilty or made to feel guilty by the prudential exercise of that liberty.
To the poster that says that they’ve never seen a priest (and I assume an EMHC) touch anyone’s mouth: that has not been my experience. It has not happened the majority of the time that I’ve received Holy Communion, but it has happened enough that it is noticeable. I make note of that as it is the precise reason that I would prefer to receive in the hand.
To Belgian Waffles: The act of rec. Holy Communion in the hand by a minister of Holy Communion, either ordinary or extraordinary, is not “taking” Holy Communion. At least, it is not regarded as such by the Church. “Taking” Holy Communion would be to pick up the Most Sacred Body or the Chalice of the Most Precious Blood from the Altar and consuming it. When one receives either of the Sacred Species from a minster, one is doing just that, “receiving.” The Church forbids “taking,” but permits reception in the hand of the MSB and the handing of the Chalice of the MPB to the communicant. What the Church permits is licit according to Her own norms.
Sancte Joseph raised an uncharitable and incredibly triumphalistic (basically “nyah, nyah, nyah!”), but highly pertinent question: “Lets just wait then until The Pope corrects this then…and then your argument will be what…the pope is wrong?”
No, the pope won’t be wrong. This is a matter of discipline and frankly it is morally neutral, so he won’t be “right” either. He’ll simply be exercising his lawful and legitimate authority (and only about a year ago, the indult permitting Holy Communion in the hand was extended to Poland, under this very pope). Neither will he be “correcting” anything. While the Holy Father seems laudably determined to restore a greater sense of reverence to our Mass, as LilyM pointed out, per the Canons of Trent, no discipline of the Church in the administration of Her Sacraments and rites can lead the faithful to impiety. The Holy Father wants a greater sense of reverence restored to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That is obviously “right.” His prudential wisdom may dictate that one of the ways to do this will be by removing the indult. He may or may not be “right,” but whatever he decides and promulgates by his legitimate authority, either to end the indult or to continue it, we can trust at the very least not to lead the faithful to impiety.
Personally, prudentially, my own petty concerns aside, I think it would probably be a good idea to end it. I’ve had to twice leave the choir loft and chase someone down because they’ve carried the Most Sacred Body away from the minister of HC (one was a lady who knelt before the Shrine of the Divine Mercy before she consumed it and the other was a child who did not know they were to consume it immediately before the minister). I think reception on the tongue would preclude that to a degree (though the Sacred Host has been secreted away for nefarious purposes before the indult was ever granted). I personally would prefer to see intinction used, which precludes reception in the hand all the way around. The maxim is this, however, *abusus non tollit usam, *the abuse does not abbrogate the proper use. We’ve been given a legitimate liberty of choice by the Holy See. No one should feel guilty or made to feel guilty by the prudential exercise of that liberty.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good point. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why Pope Benedict has now called it the Ordinary Form (OF). Not to mention that it shouldn’t be called the “Novus” anything as any new rites were specifically prohibited by the Council of Trent according to a canon that some poster (or maybe more) has/have already posted in this forum.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I too would like an end to it, but perhaps for another reason. Maybe an industrial engineer may correct me on this but kneeling and receiving on the mouth at the communion rail is perhaps a more efficient way of distribution, while giving the communicant a few seconds of reflection time after receiving. This way it doesn’t hold up the communion line which I often see as extremely slow.
M
moosears
Guest
I really think you are reading more into this than is necessary. It was introduced as the Novus Ordo Missae. What could you possibly find offensive about this language. I would say that someone is searching for something to set everybody off with. GO PRAY!!
- Status