J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
- Status
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
kleary said:
Can you show me one shred of evidence that Jesus required the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue? It is mentioned nowhere in Scripture. Since that would have been a radical departure from religious traditions of the time, it would have been mentioned, and taught, by the apostles. But it wasn’t.
All error comes from hell. Can we agree on that? If Jesus stated that “the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church”, the very entrance to hell, then the Church cannot teach error, as you say. Since the Church teaches that receiving communion in the hand is acceptable, then who are we to call the Church wrong? Be very careful about what you say about the Bride of Christ. He is very protective of His Bride.
BTW, the apostles were ordained bishops at Pentacost. During the last supper, they were lay followers.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
From Memoriale Domini
"After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long, received manner of ministering Holy Communion to te faithful should not be changed.
The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate…"
If the contrary usage, namely of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this jusdgemen provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.
This does not seem to me to vaildate your claim that the Church teaches that reception in the hand is acceptable. Quite the contrary. In fact the bishops voted against allowing experimentation by 1,215 to 751. However the Church allowed individual bishops to decide on this for their individual diocese with strict conditions which are laid out in On Facilitating the Reception of Communion in Certain Circumstance (29/1/73), most of which we must admit in honesty have not been carried out.
It should also be noted that the norm is to receive on the tongue and to receive in the hand is the exception made.
I do not deny that those who receive in the hand can receive it as reverently as those who receive on the tongue, but let us not fall into the belief that it is the normative way of doing things even it is the normal way of doing it.
A
A.Pelliccio
Guest
Fires of hell may not prevail against His Church, but from time to time it seems that the battle is very tough and that Satan’s forces within the Church are very strong.
E
EJ79
Guest
I meant to reply to this point when I wrote:
“So why does the Church do nothing about it now? - maybe the Church feels that since it IS possible to receive in the hand reverently and without accidents - that it is too late to forbid the practice all together now, since it would sadly bring about a liturgical WWIII in many parts of the world…only to add to the Church’s many woes. The Church has to be tough at times, but also pastoral and prudent in the way it handles things.”
I would add that I don’t know why the Church finally backed down and permitted the reintroduction of Communion in the hand. The Church certainly reacted pastorally, and not forcefully, to the situation. Perhaps they felt that a forceful prohibition, at such a period in history, would have been counter-productive. I don’t want to judge Pope Paul VI personally, I feel that I would be the least apt to do so - but I don’t feel I would judge him by saying that we are all human beings, and we can all make mistakes - huge and not so huge ones.
What do we do now? I say encourage people to receive the Eucharist with as much love, reverence, and devotion as possible, whether they choose to receive on the tongue or in the hand, and avoid polemics and polarizing the Church even further.
E
EJ79
Guest
I very much agree. May I add, though, that many many priests still opt to do this, although they are no longer required to. Nothing in the rubrics of the current Roman Missal puts any restraint or prohibition whatsoever on the priest from observing these traditional practices.
Mgr. Petter Elliott, in his excellent “Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite,” makes mention of this. He even mentions that Pope Paul VI continued to observe these practices in private and in public until his death. Photos of the early pontificate of Pope John Paul II, especially of his inauguration Mass, show the late Holy Father with his fingers conjoined after the consecrations.
Although priests who do not do this are not doing anything wrong, to those who would argue “why does this matter in any way,” I would just reply that it’s a beautiful observance to witness - that our love and reverence for the Eucharist would manifest itself in those “smaller” details.
E
EJ79
Guest
JKirkLVNV said:
Ouch, hold on a moment.
I’m the least to claim I’m holier than anyone. Please scroll down to see some of my more recent posts.
I agree that forcefully forbiding it now would be unwise and be counter-productive. I also stated that I believe that the Eucharist can be received in the hand reverently.
But yes, as a matter of fact, in the 1960’s, the liturgical experimentation that reintroduced communion in the hand begain the Northern European countries that I had mentioned. It wasn’t until 1976 that it was permitted as an exception in the United States and in Canada.
I haven’t established anything as law - I’ve established my opinion, though. I don’t have any hard-core statistics for you - but I was my parish’s MC for many years, and I can’t tell you the number of people who approach the altar and handle the Host as if it was a fortune cookie. I have found consecrated hosts between the pages of hymnals, in holy water fonts, under pews, etc. I realize this is due more to a lack of cathechesis than anything else, but practically speaking, they have all been the result of a consecrated host being placed in the hands of a communicant with misguided or ill intentions.
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
According to the Code of Canon Law:
Since the practice of receiving in the hand has been in practice for more than 30 years, a bishop has the authority to allow it. I agree that receiving in the hand can be done irreverently. So can receiving on the tongue. I would NEVER ask anyone who receives on the tongue to receive on the hand. However, I love receiving on the hand, and I am VERY reverent when I do. People need to be educated on what they are doing, and what is right and wrong.
E
Exporter
Guest
This poster is concerned about getting a disease from a Priest, maybe in order to avoid or to go against the G.I.R.M. ( the instructions sent from the Vatican to the Bishops that describe how to say Mass and how the parishioners will respond. And yes the G.I. R. M. tells us how to recieve the Eucharist too).
I am past 70 years and have never, never taken the host in my hand. I have never been ill either. So the argument that health supercedes following the G.I.R.M. (what the Pope said) is not logical now is it respectful to Jesus Christ.
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
In addition, I can’t imagine getting sick while receiving the Great Healer. I always receive the Precious Blood from the chalice, but have never gotten sick from that either. God is a healer. I don’t believe that sickness can be transmitted through His Body or Blood.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Thank you! You have come to the heart of the issue. Lack of belief in the Real Presence is due, more than anything else, to extraordinarily poor cathechesis. That’s the true problem and we’re never going to correct the problem until we understand THAT. The tongue/hand controversy is just so much reactionary backlash that we engage in and we need to deal with the real problem.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
AMEN to that.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
I find it intriguing that whenever the issue of reception of the Sacred Host arises, those that choose to receive in the hand immediately leap to the “I receive it with just as much reverence as you do” argument and imply that those who receive it on the tongue are being “holier than thou” by promoting the alternative.
First, no-one I have seen in this post has suggested that you can’t receive with equal reverence in the hand as on the tongue. And as the instructions on Facilitating the Reception of Holy Communion in Certain Circumstances makes clear as long as this reverence is maintained reception in the hand is allowable.
The Holy Father did however draw attention to the need to ensure that the laity were properly catechised so that this reverence would be maintained. Who in all honesty can say this has been done. Reception in the hand is more vulnerable to abuse by those that do not wish to reverence Our Lord’s Body and there is ample proof every Sunday in church of this lack of reverence.
The fact that x out of 10 who receive in the hand treat the Blessed Sacrament with appalling casualness does not mean that the remainder do. But equally the fact that the remainder reverence the Blessed Sacrament does not mean that x does. The argument ex hominem is a logical fallacy - because I do this, everyone else who appears to be doing the same must be doing it also.
Finally, I find it interesting from a human nature point of view that those who do receive it in the hand find it necessary to stress continually that they do so with equal reverence, when no-one has suggested that they as individuals don’t. Could it be that they have a lurking suspicion that it is not as reverent as receiving on the tongue?? I do not receive it on the tongue because I like it so (in fact I had to struggle for a long time with the idea of receiving it this way from an EMHC till I accepted the reverence due to Our Lord’s Body was the same no matter who was administering it) but out of reverence and awe. If one wishes to receive in the hand for the same reason then so be it I say. But if the motive is personal preference then perhaps one needs to remember that it is not “my will but thine” that needs to be done.
God bless all who worship His Holy Sacrament in all they do and in whichever way they do it.
PS: The “you” in this post is a general one not meant to refer to the poster quoted above or any one individual (sorry, thought I had better make that clear)
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
And there’s the heart of the matter. I’m glad you brought this up. And it’s not just the reception of the Eucharist that we need to be chatechised on. In fact, I can be irreverent with the host whether I receive on the tongue or in the hand. If I receive in a state of sin, I am being irreverent, regardless of the method. We need to teach ourselves how to approach the King of kings: with profound awe and reverence.
A
AGirone
Guest
Info I read that led me to rec. on tongue …
**
******The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States.
**Pope St. Leo the Great **(440-461), he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: **“One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” **(Serm. 91.3) Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception.
Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to ** receive in the hand”;**
St. Basil the Great (330-379), considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);
The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who continued the practice of Communion in the hand;
Council of Trent: " that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies." (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)
St. Thomas Aquinas: " because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. **Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, ** (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).
John Paul II, some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests, no matter where they came from, who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of President of France Madame Giscard d’Estaing came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth. Likewise, a canon lawyer present at a papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father also with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue. He gave Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican.
As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when **Mother Teresa of Calcutta **was asked by him “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” “Without pausing a second she said, **” the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’" **
Fr. John Hardon has spoken out against this practice. On November 1st, 1997 After explaining how the practice was illegally introduced into the United States, he concluded by saying, “Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
I have also read from Maria Sima’s book about souls in purgatory Get US Out of Here ,that “from the other side” communion in the hand is to be avoided. God bless you all for your interest in exploring your faith.
**
******The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States.
**Pope St. Leo the Great **(440-461), he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: **“One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” **(Serm. 91.3) Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception.
Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to ** receive in the hand”;**
St. Basil the Great (330-379), considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);
The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who continued the practice of Communion in the hand;
Council of Trent: " that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies." (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)
St. Thomas Aquinas: " because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. **Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, ** (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).
John Paul II, some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests, no matter where they came from, who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of President of France Madame Giscard d’Estaing came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth. Likewise, a canon lawyer present at a papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father also with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue. He gave Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican.
As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when **Mother Teresa of Calcutta **was asked by him “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” “Without pausing a second she said, **” the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’" **
Fr. John Hardon has spoken out against this practice. On November 1st, 1997 After explaining how the practice was illegally introduced into the United States, he concluded by saying, “Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
I have also read from Maria Sima’s book about souls in purgatory Get US Out of Here ,that “from the other side” communion in the hand is to be avoided. God bless you all for your interest in exploring your faith.
O
otm
Guest
Oh, please. Do you really see the Vatican as a group of wishy washy namby pamby “oh, we’d better change or they’ll get mad at us and leave” gutless, spinless rollovers? I sure don’t.
G
gez722
Guest
Amen!!! When my parish priest addressed the lack of reverence for the Eucharist a few weeks ago, I was both pleased and saddened. Pleased that he finally discussed it and saddened that it had to be said. It really is a major problem and needs to be addressed much more in homilies.
God Bless,
Gary
P
pappmary
Guest
Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, not handling The Lord like he isn’t REAL is how one who truely understands the great gift we have,will always be cognisent of how one receives. It is unfortunate that the Bishops of the United States have been lax with insistance on properly receiving Jesus.Also swollowing the Eucharist so it goes directly to our soul and not chewing it or making it melt in our mouth. That is where our connection is made. It is food for our SOUL. We must always remember.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
To kneel is an act of humility. To receive the Body of Christ while kneeling is an act of humility. To allow someone else, the priest, to place the Body of Christ on your tongue, is an act of humility.
If anyone who has never received on the tongue, while kneeling, I would encourage you to visit a traditional parish in your area where Holy Communion is distributed this way and tell me that it doesn’t feel “beneath you” the first time.
This was my experience, but that soon changed as humility replaced the pride.
If anyone who has never received on the tongue, while kneeling, I would encourage you to visit a traditional parish in your area where Holy Communion is distributed this way and tell me that it doesn’t feel “beneath you” the first time.
This was my experience, but that soon changed as humility replaced the pride.
G
gez722
Guest
I couldn’t agree more! I was just thinking about that today. I want to feel humble when I receive my Savior in Holy Communion.
God Bless,
Gary
- Status