Swiss Guard said:
Let me use an analogy to state my point. You are over at a friend’s house and he shows you the expensive crystal he and his wife just bought. He tells you how much it cost him and how much he and his wife love it. He says they only bring it out for special occasions and are very careful how they handle it. Would you handle the crystal or would you, out of respect for your friend and the crystal, just look at it and not touch it? I wouldn’t touch it unless my friend specifically let me touch it. If we would act this way with an inanimate object, how much more respect should be shown to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? How precious would the crystal be if your friend let everyone touch it? You would think it isn’t precious at all, especially if he let his kids and all the neighbor kids come in and handle it. How much more should we regard the Blessed Sacrament, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The priest purifies his fingers after distributing Holy Communion. That is why there is a small glass container of water next to the tabernacle. At least there is supposed to be one. If not, the priest isn’t following the directives set by the Holy See. Then again, if a priest doesn’t purify his fingers, it leaves many questions in my mind.
What you have stated is objectively called the “fundamental option.” This is the heresy promoted by the late Fr. Karl Rahner and others which says that a sin is only a mortal sin if you intend to cut yourself off from God. In other words, I can fornicate all I want and it’s not a mortal sin as long as I don’t intend to cut myself off from God. The Church says for a sin to be mortal there must be three conditions: grievous matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.
Now, someone who receives in the hand and does everything to purify his hands and fingers or unintentionally forgot to do it would not be guilty of a sacrilege. If someone decides out of negligence not to purify his hands, then that person could be culpable, provided the person knows it is sinful.
Did they tell you that receiving on the tongue is the norm and that special persmission is needed to receive in the hand? Did they even inform you of the “option” to receive on the tongue? I didn’t think so.
It’s not about “moral high ground,” it has to do with reverence. As I stated in a previous post, Communion in the hand came about because of disobedience! I’ve yet to hear someone argue that disobedience is reverent.
First, using your analogy of the crystal. If my friend said, “Out of respect for me, I don’t want you to touch this crystal,” I would oblidge. But how is it irreverent if he says, “Here, take this in your hand, or don’t touch it, it’s up to you.” Am I being disrespectful of him if he says either way is okay?
Second, even though the priest purifies his fingers, that still doesn’t mean some of it may not be mishandled. That was just my point.
Third, I would disagree that what I said was the “fundamental option.” Are you accusing me of heresy on something the Church has not ruled on? If I’m not violating Church doctrine, then I am not a heretic. Tell me, where is reception on the tongue doctrine? Would you consider accidentally dropping some of the Host “full consent of the will?” I would not call what I was proposing the “fundamental option” because I would not for the life of me propose that someone pocket the Host with full consent of the will, sufficient knowledge, and after sufficient reflection.
If I were supporting the “fundamental option” then I would be saying, “do whatever with the Host as long as you don’t intend to cut yourself off from God.” That is WRONG! There is a distinction between the “fundamental option” and what the Church teaches. But by your logic, someone is guilty of murder if they get in a car crash and unintentionally kill someone. Would you also call this the “fundamental option?” Is this person guilty of mortal sin because they unintentionally acted against human life? I was dealing with the intention of the ACT, not the intention as it relates to God.
You should be careful about insinuating that fellow Catholics are heretics for practicing their faith a little differently (as long as it doesn’t contradict doctrine; difference doesn’t mean contradiction.)
I revere God completely in the Eucharist (although you have already assumed I am guilty irreverence because I take the Eucharist by hand.) I prefer to take it by hand, but I respect those who, out of reverence, take it on the tongue.
If receiving by hand is so disobedient, then the Church should outlaw it. Period.
Also, at my first Communion they did inform me that you could take it on the tongue, but they said it was personal preference.
This whole debate is reminding me of the Pharisees, who lived the law but failed to internalize it.
