C
Chancellare
Guest
As I already suggested in another thread, we can help minimize polarization by avoiding labels of “traditionalists” vs “modernists” vs what-not Catholics. When we discuss communion we are all Catholics.
- Status
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
Thank you for the suggestion.
But, in practice, the “T” word is what they actually like to refer to themselves.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
Actually I never use the T word to describe myself. And again I think you are making sweeping statements designed to categorise people. Who are “they”? And why are “they” relevant to this discussion on reception of Holy Communion?
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please get back on topic, folks, or I’ll have to close the thread.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
D
debok
Guest
Thank you Innocent III for responding.
A question - if Jesus Christ does not ‘flee’ the crumbs - then does communion in the hand cause these crumbs - I tried this and found a few tiny specs of the Host in my hand - so multiply that by every Catholic receiving - to be scattered on the floor where we are walking?
If so, then how could the Church allow such a sacriledge?
A question - if Jesus Christ does not ‘flee’ the crumbs - then does communion in the hand cause these crumbs - I tried this and found a few tiny specs of the Host in my hand - so multiply that by every Catholic receiving - to be scattered on the floor where we are walking?
If so, then how could the Church allow such a sacriledge?
I
InnocentIII
Guest
This is in fact one of the reasons FOR reception on the tongue especially when combined with the use of the communion plate.
My problem with reception in the hand is it becomes about US and not about the LORD. The most important “actor” in the communion is the LORD himself who is present in the Sacred Species and gives HIMSELF to us. The rule that should guide us in all things relating to the Blessed Sacrament is what is most desirable for the LORD.
Reception in the hand however is almost always expressed in terms of what is most desirable for US. Arguments in favour always come down to “I am just as holy as anyone else”, “I love to be able to receive Our Lord’s Body in my hand” and so forth. As I said before would we really go up to Our Lord, shake his hand and say hi. Reception in the hand is about our relationship to the heirarchy - an implicit way of stating equality with the sacred ministers, especially the priest - when it really should be about our relationship to Christ Really Present in the Sacrament.
It should also I think be pointed out that reception in the hand was not mandated by the Church positively but allowed negatively. That is it was introduced in various dioceses in conjunction with the idea of the Priesthood of all Believers (itself a very protestant concept) and then allowed by the Church in response to requests by various bishops. To this day it therefore lacks a positive mandate from the Church.
U
Unitas
Guest
My personal reasons for recieving on the tongue is that it says during the consecration “…took bread into His holy and venerable hands…”
The priest is acting in persona Christi, right? So, at least for the duration, it follows that the priest’s hands are holy and venerable as well.
My hands aren’t holy and venerable, so it would be better for only the priest’s hands to be handling our Lord, at least to me.
That’s just my take on it at least.
The priest is acting in persona Christi, right? So, at least for the duration, it follows that the priest’s hands are holy and venerable as well.
My hands aren’t holy and venerable, so it would be better for only the priest’s hands to be handling our Lord, at least to me.
That’s just my take on it at least.
U
Unitas
Guest
My personal reasons for recieving on the tongue is that it says during the consecration “…took bread into His holy and venerable hands…”
The priest is acting in persona Christi, right? So, at least for the duration, it follows that the priest’s hands are holy and venerable as well.
My hands aren’t holy and venerable, so it would be better for only the priest’s hands to be handling our Lord, at least to me.
That’s just my take on it at least.
The priest is acting in persona Christi, right? So, at least for the duration, it follows that the priest’s hands are holy and venerable as well.
My hands aren’t holy and venerable, so it would be better for only the priest’s hands to be handling our Lord, at least to me.
That’s just my take on it at least.
U
Unitas
Guest
My personal reasons for recieving on the tongue is that it says during the consecration “…took bread into His holy and venerable hands…”
The priest is acting in persona Christi, right? So, at least for the duration, it follows that the priest’s hands are holy and venerable as well.
My hands aren’t holy and venerable, so it would be better for only the priest’s hands to be handling our Lord, at least to me.
That’s just my take on it at least.
The priest is acting in persona Christi, right? So, at least for the duration, it follows that the priest’s hands are holy and venerable as well.
My hands aren’t holy and venerable, so it would be better for only the priest’s hands to be handling our Lord, at least to me.
That’s just my take on it at least.
L
Lampo
Guest
My dad went to Mass this past Sunday and told me that the Deacon administering the Holy Eucharist would rub the head of each child that walked up to receive. So, I guess the communicants received our Lord hair oil and all. To me, that’s shameful. Further, my dad told me on another occasion the same deacon was speaking and trying to convey the Immaculate Conception. The deacon said, “The Immaculate…something.” My dad and the others were astonished! One of them said, “You mean the Immaculate Conception?” The deacon said, “Yes, that is it.” It was clear he had no idea what the Immaculate Conception was! Very sad…
B
BloodStaindRose
Guest
Recieving the Eucharist in your hand is very disrespectful. You have no divine right for your flesh to come into contact with the pure Body of Christ. Particles from the Host stay on your hand and what happens with your hand next–you grab a book, open a door and now the Body of Christ is on that inanimate object…How rude?!
L
LilyM
Guest
Well we have no right to receive communion in any form or manner - be it on our tongues or in our hands. All of it would be disrespectful - were it not for what we do have, which is a gracious invitation.
Christ gave the bread to his Apostles, so we know we can receive. He ALSO took Thomas’ hand and touched it to His sacred flesh so that Thomas could feel his wounds and he and we could know that that flesh was real.
And many other saintly Christians took the Eucharist in their hands in the centuries before communion on the tongue became the norm. So I don’t see the problem.
D
debok
Guest
Just a clarification of my last post - I was not trying to demean priests - I was merely saying that they use their hands for practical matters - and when they shake hands with others AFTER they have consecrated the bread and wine - how can this be holy/correct? And to pass the Host on to lay persons as well - this seems like a grave sacriledge - so how can the Church/Pope be correct on allowing this practice?
It seems to me that the practice shows our lack of belief in the Real Presence - I just don’t understand how Bishops/Priests can allows/practice this - if we do truly believe Jesus Christ is present in ANY part of the consecrated Host - then how can we continue this practice - ‘crumbs’ and all???
It seems to me that the practice shows our lack of belief in the Real Presence - I just don’t understand how Bishops/Priests can allows/practice this - if we do truly believe Jesus Christ is present in ANY part of the consecrated Host - then how can we continue this practice - ‘crumbs’ and all???
L
LilyM
Guest
The fact is for HUNDREDS OF YEARS after Our Lord’s death ***plenty ***of perfectly saintly, worthy and knowledgeable Christians (including St Cyril of Jerusalem himself) happily took the Eucharist in their own hands and gave it into the hands of laypersons.
Our POPES (infallible, remember - incapable of permitting anything by way of rite or ritual which leads the faithful into impiety let alone sacrilege, according to the Canons of the Council of Trent, remember) have given permission for the resumption of this ancient and perfectly acceptable practice.
You are doing much more than demeaning priests - you’re saying that the Popes personally have not only committed sacrilege but have authorised its commission by others. You’re saying, in essence, that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church and that Christ’s word to Peter is worthless.
D
debok
Guest
This is a straw man argument - if I say “yes”, then I sound like I am setting myself up above the Pope - if I say “no” then I accept that a practice that could be a sacriledge is just okay - why not ask the question? We’re supposed to be into ‘dialoguing’ these days - so let’s ‘diaolgue’. I still don’t understand how you can believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist - all parts - and doesn’t ‘flee’ and yet allow a practice in which there are parts - ‘crumbs’ which fall to the ground - (again, I know because I tried this practice and found two ‘crumbs’ - I tried to get the one and it disappeared or fell to the ground) now multiply this by HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Catholics every Sunday - how can this be?
And remember, the Pope isn’t infallible in ALL that he does - this would set him up to be a god - the old idolatry problem of ancient times updated to our times. Paul stood Peter to his face and saints over the years have denounced the actions/words of past popes. If we make the Pope and anything he says/does untouchable, don’t we set him up as a god?
But back to our question - can anyone answer the logic here - Jesus truly present in all particles of the Host - particles of the Host fall to the ground - we step on that ground - therefore, we step on God/Jesus in the Eucharist unless He somehow ‘flees’ these small particles - but that would be to deny the first premise.
And remember, the Pope isn’t infallible in ALL that he does - this would set him up to be a god - the old idolatry problem of ancient times updated to our times. Paul stood Peter to his face and saints over the years have denounced the actions/words of past popes. If we make the Pope and anything he says/does untouchable, don’t we set him up as a god?
But back to our question - can anyone answer the logic here - Jesus truly present in all particles of the Host - particles of the Host fall to the ground - we step on that ground - therefore, we step on God/Jesus in the Eucharist unless He somehow ‘flees’ these small particles - but that would be to deny the first premise.
L
LilyM
Guest
No it isn’t a straw man - the fact is you’ve painted yourself into a corner. Reception in the hand in itself isn’t and by definition cannot be tending to sacrilege, nor actual sacrilege. Of course individuals who deliberately drop on the ground or trample on visible crumbs of host are sacrilegous. But then so are those who receiving in a state of mortal sin on the tongue, so there’s no less potential for sacrilege with communion on the tongue.
And no, Popes aren’t infallible in all they do. They are, as the Council of Trent DID infallibly declare, by exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium, incapable of promoting impiety or sacrilege (the next best thing to infallible) as far as prescribing rites and rituals of worship. First and foremost of these being the Mass and all pertaining thereto, including the method of receiving communion. Ergo the Pope is incapable of proposing a sacrilegious method of reception of the host.
No I don’t deny the first premise at all. You are, however, missing the crucial logical step where sacrilege requires intent on the part of the person who commits it. Like any crime or sin, sacrilege isn’t merely about the action that happens, but also depends on the context of the action, including the awareness and intent of the actor.
If you do all you can to avoid dropping or stepping on particles yourself, and don’t SEE any particles of host on the ground in front of you prior to stepping, then you haven’t committed sacrilege by doing so.
For starters Christ is only present in visible and recognisable fragments of host anyway, we’re not talking microscopic or near-microscopic particles here. Secondly you need to both see the fragments of host and recognise them as fragments of host (as opposed to dust or whatever else) prior to deliberately dropping them on the ground or stepping on them for it to be sacrilege.
Now anyone who inadvertently drops or tramples on fragments of host has *not *committed sacrilege by the mere act of doing so. Any more than a child of two years old who takes their mother’s wallet has committed theft. They can perform all the same actions with some or all of the same results for the victim as a thief, but they had no intent to thieve and are therefore guilty of no crime or misdeed.
I really hope this clears things up for you, because the same principles as far as intent being required apply to almost all sins, so it behooves you to understand them correctly.
J
jessecd
Guest
That was well written and added a certain level of clarity. An additional clarification is that “intent” is required for mortal sin. The unintentional desecration of the host hypothetically would not be a mortal sin, but it would still be at least a venial sin. Other factors could play into this, of course, such as being to lazy to learn what is and what isn’t sacrilege…if the result of your laziness is the sacrilege, then the laziness could be elevated to mortal sin…
Anyway, St. Thomas was very eloquent in his discussion of this point, and to summarize he said to treat even the smallest fragment as a piece of your own body, and further that only consecrated hands should such the consecrated host.
Before communion in the hand was re-introduced, the priests always maintained contract between their thumb and forefinger
so that the smallest particle wouldn’t escape; as the smallest particle is indeed the B,B,S,D of Christ, according to the teaching of the church for at least 1400 years. So, it seems safest to receive on the tongue…it seems strange to me that you could feel comfortable touching the host with filthy hands anyway. There is a reason the priest has his hands washed with holy water before the consecration.
In response to the appeals to history for communion in the hand:
The Church has consistently taught that as it ages, it furthers in wisdom and understanding of the great mysteries. It is logical then to assert that the early church did not have as full an understanding of the Eucharist as we do now - which is why they saw no issue with communion in the hand… The understanding we have now lends itself to support communion on the tongue.
Id rather know that I have not even possible desecrated the host, then to wonder if I had. I prefer to follow the popes advice on this one (JPII, Benedict XVI, etc) and receive, as they called it, the preferred way: on the tongue.
God bless,
j
S
Sixtus
Guest
I have observed that those who receive on the tongue, are those with the greatest degree of reverence. But many of those who receive in the hand do so n a very casual manner.
I have also noted that among those who leave the Church immediately after consuming without spending reverent time with the Lord, are those who receive in the hand. I have not observed anyone to receive on the tongue then to walk out of the Church straight afterwards.
So in my experience, there does appear to be evidence that receiving in the hand leads to abuse.
I have also noted that among those who leave the Church immediately after consuming without spending reverent time with the Lord, are those who receive in the hand. I have not observed anyone to receive on the tongue then to walk out of the Church straight afterwards.
So in my experience, there does appear to be evidence that receiving in the hand leads to abuse.
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Whichever is the cause and the effect (It might be the other way), I believe there is a connection. Of course that is not to say that it applies to everybody.
- Status