Receiving Eucharist

[utunumsint]

I would like to offer some kind of response to my protestant friend.

What do you think about this one?

1-This is a matter of discipline which the Pope can change because he has the power of binding and loosing (see Mat 16)

If this is an acceptable answer, then my follow up question is, how can a matter of discipline be a mortal sin? Was it only a mortal sin up until 1970 when the rules changes?

I would like to say that transgression of this kind are only venial.

Thanks,
Ut

 

[marymonde]

Your tactic of aligning me with heretics is quite interesting, when receiving on the tongue is a permitted practice within the Church today, and therefore, far from heretical. If you insist that this is the only legitimate way that the Eucharist can be received, it isn’t me who’s placing himself outside the bounds of Church authority, but rather, you.

I assure you this is not a tactic, it’s merely an observation.

dj, if you cannot see the fruits of communion in the hand, disbelief in the True Presence, hosts found in pews, and other terrible sacriliges, I don’t know what to say.

I will start another thread about a former eucharistic minister and a particle study he made on how Our Lord is trampled upon over and over each and every week at mass. It is an abomination.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just a question for you Deacon. I was taught as a child way back in the dark ages of 1952, that touching the host was even worse than a mortal sin–it was sacrilege. That being the case, if I touched the host, wouldn’t it be a mortal sin for me since I believed it was? If the OPs friend believed the same thing, wouldn’t it be a mortal sin for her?

I’m not sure who taught you that. What the teaching of the WESTERN Church was from about the year 1,000 until the Second Vatican Council was that under normal conditions one was not to touch the sacred species except as it was placed on one’s tongue. However, there were always special conditions where this was not the case – fire in the Church, for example. Intention was also a significant factor here – why was the person touching the Blessed Sacrament.

I recall as an altar server asking the priest for forgiveness because the edge of my hand accidentally touched the chalice (even though I was carrying it by the veil). His comment was that if there was no intentional touching there was no problem. The same held for the Eucharist.

However, as Pope John Paul II made clear, the Church is the one who decides what the rules are and can grant permission to the laity to touch the Blessed Sacrament.

Deacon Ed

 

[utunumsint]

dj, if you cannot see the fruits of communion in the hand, disbelief in the True Presence, hosts found in pews, and other terrible sacriliges, I don’t know what to say.

Good point Marymonde.

When I was in grade school many many years ago, I can remember a classmate taking out the host and sticking it under the bench at the church. I didn’t think much of it then, but I do now. That is our Lord. There should be better precautions taken to ensure that the host is treated with proper reverence.

However, I don’t see a necessary connection between taking communion in the hand and sacrilege. Having spend many hours in an adoratio chapel, I can tell you that reverence for the Eucharist is alive and well.

Ut

 

[djrakowski]

I assure you this is not a tactic, it’s merely an observation.

Ah, I see. So does that make all of us who’ve received on the hand heretics? The ordinary magisterium disagrees with you. I know who deserves my trust!

dj, if you cannot see the fruits of communion in the hand, disbelief in the True Presence, hosts found in pews, and other terrible sacriliges, I don’t know what to say.

I will start another thread about a former eucharistic minister and a particle study he made on how Our Lord is trampled upon over and over each and every week at mass. It is an abomination.

This is one of the strangest arguments I’ve ever seen. Belief in the Real Presence has nothing to do with receiving in the hand, as I know some incredibly strong Catholics - including a parish in a neighboring town with the best teaching pastor in our archdiocese - who receive in the hand and believe quite strongly in the Real Presence.

You can list any number of abominations, such as disbelief, hosts found in pews and ‘other terrible sacrileges,’ but you’re going to have to work awfully hard to prove these are the rule, and not exception. First, with respect to belief in the Real Presence, you’re going to have to become a reader of hearts, minds and souls to know what people really believe. Second, you’re going to have to visit every Novus Ordo parish and follow every communicant up through the line, watch him receive the host, and watch what happens as he walks back to return. Third, at each of these parishes, you’re going to have to go up and down each pew to make sure no particle of the host is left to be trampled upon.

The matter is quite simple, really. The Church has determined that communion in the hand is an acceptable practice. Who are you to come along and tell them they’re wrong?

There’s an awful lot of Protestant thinking going on in the Traditional Catholic subforum!

 

[SnorterLuster]

Ah, I see. So does that make all of us who’ve received on the hand heretics? The ordinary magisterium disagrees with you. I know who deserves my trust!
This is one of the strangest arguments I’ve ever seen. Belief in the Real Presence has nothing to do with receiving in the hand, as I know some incredibly strong Catholics - including a parish in a neighboring town with the best teaching pastor in our archdiocese - who receive in the hand and believe quite strongly in the Real Presence.

You can list any number of abominations, such as disbelief, hosts found in pews and ‘other terrible sacrileges,’ but you’re going to have to work awfully hard to prove these are the rule, and not exception. First, with respect to belief in the Real Presence, you’re going to have to become a reader of hearts, minds and souls to know what people really believe. Second, you’re going to have to visit every Novus Ordo parish and follow every communicant up through the line, watch him receive the host, and watch what happens as he walks back to return. Third, at each of these parishes, you’re going to have to go up and down each pew to make sure no particle of the host is left to be trampled upon.

The matter is quite simple, really. The Church has determined that communion in the hand is an acceptable practice. Who are you to come along and tell them they’re wrong?

There’s an awful lot of Protestant thinking going on in the Traditional Catholic subforum!

Hey, that’s pretty good. In the second paragraph you argue that YOU know some people, including a priest in the next town who receive in the hand and believe in the True Presence. Since YOU know of some people like that, it must not be a problem. Right?

But here is the best part, you turn right around in the third paragraph that unless marymonde can prove, through personal observation of ALL receipients in the hand, that some, most or all are less than reverent than those who receive on the tongue, her argument is wrong.

So there you have your argument–if you observe something–that proves the rule. If I observe something that disagrees with your observation, that proves nothing unless I can show that it applies throughout the diocese, nation or world.

Oh, by the way, regarding that “best teaching pastor” in the neighboring town–are you using the same standard you applied to marymonde? …“you’re going to have to become a reader of hearts, minds and souls to know what people really believe.”

 

[djrakowski]

Hey, that’s pretty good. In the second paragraph you argue that YOU know some people, including a priest in the next town who receive in the hand and believe in the True Presence. Since YOU know of some people like that, it must not be a problem. Right?

:yup: And therefore, the problem is clearly poor catechesis that leads to improper handling of the Eucharistic host, and not receiving in the hand. That is to say, many people who receive in the hand have a proper understanding of both the Real Presence and how to handle our Eucharistic Lord. Nobody said it isn’t a problem that these matters aren’t handled properly, but rather, that it isn’t a symptom of receiving in the hand.

But here is the best part, you turn right around in the third paragraph that unless marymonde can prove, through personal observation of ALL receipients in the hand, that some, most or all are less than reverent than those who receive on the tongue, her argument is wrong.

My request for real evidence is perfectly logical and reasonable. Marymonde is the one who made the silly assertion that Eucharist in the hand is to be likened to heresy, and that it has led to decreased belief in the Real Presence and increased incidence of sacrilege. I asked her to prove it, and I think my example of many folks who receive in the hand with due reverernce and believe is a fine counter-example. But of course, since that doesn’t suit her belief, where she really claims to know better than the bishops and Pope who allow this practice, of course, I must be wrong, and she (and you) must be right. I’m beginning to see how things work on the ‘traditionalist’ end of the spectrum. Your counter-examples are definitive, and mine are an aberration

So there you have your argument–if you observe something–that proves the rule. If I observe something that disagrees with your observation, that proves nothing unless I can show that it applies throughout the diocese, nation or world.

No, my disagreement is with the grand, sweeping assertion, without definitive proof, mind you, that receiving in the hand is what has led to sacrilege and lack of belief. Of course, that doesn’t suit your agenda, so feel free to continuously ignore the logic of the argument if you must.

Oh, by the way, regarding that “best teaching pastor” in the neighboring town–are you using the same standard you applied to marymonde? …“you’re going to have to become a reader of hearts, minds and souls to know what people really believe.”

This particular pastor is widely regarded as such, and is a prominent apologist both on local Catholic media, as well as nationwide. I’ve heard his talks, including recordings of educational sessions he’s given to his parishioners, and I assure you, there’s no lack of belief or reverence for the Eucharist in his parish, and most folks there receive in the hand. Surprise, surprise… another hard-and-fast supposedly universal rule of the ultra-traditionalists goes down.

'm not reading anyone’s hearts, though Marymonde certainly tried to do so when she asserts that those receiving in the hand have a reduced appreciation, or outright disbelief, in the Real Presence. Produce some hard data, then we’ll talk. And then, as counter-evidence, produce some hard data that proves those who receive on the tongue (as is the practice in our parish) automatically have a stronger belief in the Real Presence.

 

[SnorterLuster]

:yup: And therefore, the problem is clearly poor catechesis that leads to improper handling of the Eucharistic host, and not receiving in the hand. That is to say, many people who receive in the hand have a proper understanding of both the Real Presence and how to handle our Eucharistic Lord. Nobody said it isn’t a problem that these matters aren’t handled properly, but rather, that it isn’t a symptom of receiving in the hand.
I think I could argue that since, as you say it is poor catechesis that leads to improper handling, then it is a result of Communion in the hand. Had it not been allowed, there would be no need to teach the proper handling. You would think that after what, 20 years of Communion in the hand, the Bishops and Priests could have instructed the people on proper handling, wouldn’t you.
My request for real evidence is perfectly logical and reasonable. Marymonde is the one who made the silly assertion that Eucharist in the hand is to be likened to heresy, and that it has led to decreased belief in the Real Presence and increased incidence of sacrilege. I asked her to prove it, and I think my example of many folks who receive in the hand with due reverernce and believe is a fine counter-example. **You ask for “proof” from marymonde that is impossible to attain. You request that she observe every Communion in every NO parish and follow each person and somehow discern what each person has done. Talk about silly. **But of course, since that doesn’t suit her belief, where she really claims to know better than the bishops and Pope who allow this practice, of course, I must be wrong, and she (and you) must be right. Wow, from my post you figured out that I claim to know more than the Pope and Bishops. Talk about reading between the lines–I don’t think I have ever made that claim. Of course since you are a “mainstream” N.O. Catholic you can accuse me of disobedience and get away with it. I’m beginning to see how things work on the ‘traditionalist’ end of the spectrum. Your counter-examples are definitive, and mine are an aberration And on your end of the spectrum your counter-examples are definitive, and mine or marymonde’s are an aberration–I think I read that somewhere before.
No, my disagreement is with the grand, sweeping assertion, without definitive proof, mind you, that receiving in the hand is what has led to sacrilege and lack of belief. Of course, that doesn’t suit your agenda, so feel free to continuously ignore the logic of the argument if you must. I don’t know what you need for proof. I suppose you wouldn’t accept a sample by some outfit called Gallup. I saw someone post on here that the NYT/Gallup (I think, I’m doing this from memory) found that 70% of Catholics at worst didn’t believe in the True Presence or putting lipstick on the pig, 70% really didn’t know what the True Presence is.
This particular pastor is widely regarded as such, and is a prominent apologist both on local Catholic media, as well as nationwide. I’ve heard his talks, including recordings of educational sessions he’s given to his parishioners, and I assure you, there’s no lack of belief or reverence for the Eucharist in his parish, and most folks there receive in the hand. **First, with respect to belief in the Real Presence, you’re going to have to become a reader of hearts, minds and souls to know what people really believe. Second, you’re going to have to visit every Novus Ordo parish and follow every communicant up through the line, watch him receive the host, and watch what happens as he walks back to return. Third, at each of these parishes, you’re going to have to go up and down each pew to make sure no particle of the host is left to be trampled upon. (So is it safe for me to assume you did all these things?) **Surprise, surprise… another hard-and-fast supposedly universal rule of the ultra-traditionalists goes down. **And what hard and fast rule would that be? **

'm not reading anyone’s hearts,(see above about reading hearts) though Marymonde certainly tried to do so when she asserts that those receiving in the hand have a reduced appreciation, or outright disbelief, in the Real Presence. Produce some hard data, **(70% of Catholics don’t believe? is that hard enough) **then we’ll talk. And then, as counter-evidence, produce some hard data that proves those who receive on the tongue (as is the practice in our parish) automatically have a stronger belief in the Real Presence.I don’t think it is automatic, but the difference in the way people act during Holy Communion is like night and day between my old N.O. parish and my TLM parish.

 

[m134e5]

I think you have been hearing urban legends! The Church permits the reception of communion in the hand, it was also the tradition in the Church for at least 500 years – how can what was acceptable be a mortal sin? While many will claim that it is less reverent or that the eucharist should be handled only by a priest, it is not now and never has been a mortal sin.

Water has never broken the fast, not when it was from midnight, not when it was three hours and certainly not now with an hour fast.

There were never such rules as your friend claims. However, the best way to deal with this is to ask your friend for proof – get it in writing since all Catholic “rules” are, in fact, in writing.

Deacon Ed

The Church did not permit communion in the hand at that time. It doesn’t matter what it allowed before then. Intent to commit sacrilige against the Eucharist would be a mortal sin, even though the action of receiving in the hand may not have been. Simply the intent to disobey the Church and receive in a way the Western Church had been told not to could have been mortally sinful.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The Church did not permit communion in the hand at that time. It doesn’t matter what it allowed before then. Intent to commit sacrilige against the Eucharist would be a mortal sin, even though the action of receiving in the hand may not have been. Simply the intent to disobey the Church and receive in a way the Western Church had been told not to could have been mortally sinful.

St. Basil the Great would disagree with you about communion in the hand being the traditional practice, as would St. Cyril of Jerusalem who instructed the new converts on how to receive communion in his catechetical lectures.

There was a time where it was not the practice – but that’s a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. The Church can and does change discipline as She sees fit. It is not up to us to tell the Church what She can and cannot do: it is up to us to obey the Church.

Permission has been granted for communion in the hand in the United States and in several other countries. This is an option that each communicant may choose to exercise or not. The normative way of receiving around the world is on the tongue and that is the method that must be used in those countries that do not have the indult for communion in the hand.

Deacon Ed

 

[utunumsint]

So if my protestant friend felt like she had no choice but to use her finger to pry off the Eucharist from the top of her mouth, her intent was not sacriligious, and therefore the act was not a mortal sin.

I can characterize the priest’s condemnation as an overreaction.

In addition, the Church can legislate what constitutes sacraligious behaviour (and therefore a mortal sin) based on changing historical circumstances.

Thanks for all the responses,
God bless,
Ut

 

[Deacon_Ed]

So if my protestant friend felt like she had no choice but to use her finger to pry off the Eucharist from the top of her mouth, her intent was not sacriligious, and therefore the act was not a mortal sin.

I can characterize the priest’s condemnation as an overreaction.

In addition, the Church can legislate what constitutes sacraligious behaviour (and therefore a mortal sin) based on changing historical circumstances.

Thanks for all the responses,
God bless,
Ut

When one studies philosophy one learns about the logical fallacy of “begging the question” – that is, of presenting a conclusion as the premise.

Touching the Blessed Sacrament is not intrinsically sacrilegious (note the correct spelling) as you claim. If it were, the Church could not permit it. Since the Church does permit it, it is not sinful for the Church cannot permit sin.

You might want to rethink your position.

Deacon Ed

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for your help Deacon Ed.

 

[Listener]

I can remember back in the early 1950’s when I made my First Communion, you couldn’t eat anything or drink any water or anything else after midnight if you wanted to receive Communion. At that time, I always thought it was supposed to be a mortal sin to deliberately touch the host with your hand. You weren’t even supposed to touch it with your teeth. Back then, only the people who went to early Mass received Communion. If the mass was at say 10:00, everyone had already had breakfast and only a handful of people went to Communion.

I don’t doubt what the person who started this thread reported, but everyone should know that you can’t accidentally commit a mortal sin.

Since I believe in the power of the Pope and Bishops to change the rules, Communion in the hand is just fine with me. For those of you who don’t believe in any Vatican II rule changes, are you all going back to the strict Communion fast (the way it was in the early 1950’s)?

 

[Fludgecow101]

I think you have been hearing urban legends! The Church permits the reception of communion in the hand, it was also the tradition in the Church for at least 500 years – how can what was acceptable be a mortal sin? While many will claim that it is less reverent or that the eucharist should be handled only by a priest, it is not now and never has been a mortal sin.

Deacon Ed

Since when was receiving on the hand a tradition for at least 500 years?

 

[ElizabethPH]

First, at my parish, we receive on the tongue, via intinction (and it is my preferred method). I attended another parish this past weekend, and most folks received in the hand (including myself, as it seemed that the EMHCs didn’t distribute on the tongue), and a few received on the tongue from the priest

Your tactic of aligning me with heretics is quite interesting, when receiving on the tongue is a permitted practice within the Church today, and therefore, far from heretical. If you insist that this is the only legitimate way that the Eucharist can be received, it isn’t me who’s placing himself outside the bounds of Church authority, but rather, you.

I thought intinction was reserved for priests, bishops etc…and lay people do not do it.

 

[T700]

Since when was receiving on the hand a tradition for at least 500 years?

Copying from one of the early posts in this thread:

From St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures (AD 300s):

newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

1. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

 

[Lepanto]

Copying from one of the early posts in this thread:

From St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures (AD 300s):

newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

1. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

Please see item #9 here:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[T700]

Please see item #9 here:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Thank you for a very interesting reference. I just skimmed through it and intend to return to it when I have the time necessary to digest it fully.

Please understand that I am not suggesting that I personally think the practice of receiving in the hand, nor standing, is good or what I am most comfortable with. I am a traditionalist and very much wish to pay homage to my savior by kneeling before him. I am merely pointing out that to claim that the currently permitted norm in the US is wrong is to put oneself in opposition to the Church.

Paul