Receivng Communion on your Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter cuqui
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Layman said:
Let’s make this simple:

What are the benefits of changing, in the Roman Rite, today, from Communion on the tongue, from a priest, kneeling, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman?

**
You ask the question as if it’s rhetorical. It really isn’t. The Church has spoken pretty authoritatively on the validity and licitness of receiving in the hand while standing.

Rather than argue why YOU think it’s wrong, maybe you should spend some time trying to understand why Church chose to make a change to one of its disciplines in the Latin Rite (vs doctrine or dogma, but you get that already). The Church says it isn’t wrong. The link I provided above clearly demonstrates it was not a decision made without clear understanding or conscious deliberation and the approval of the Pope.

For you to think you know better than the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Pope himself suggests a bit of hubris, to say the least.

It’s clear you have a preference to receive our Lord on the tongue in a reverent, kneeling posture. I salute you and support you. To argue that the Church is wrong and you aren’t suggests you may miss the point. If you reject the authority of the Church, on who’s authority to you base your judgment? Luther? Calvin? There’s many that have started down this same road for centuries.
Click to expand...
 
nice2000 said:
I hear you. I am shocked to hear that the moderator would close the thread though. Well the Pope (Benedict) has said it from his own lips. I am not sure why some of the Bishops and Priests and even some of the Cardinals are not helping to enforce what the Holy See is saying though.
Click to expand...
So was I.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=348123
Jean Anthongy
Moderator
Join Date: February 5, 2007
Location: Liturgy & Sacraments
Posts: 2,441
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies
I will allow this discussion since it is current news, but please don’t discuss whether or not it is better to receive one way or the other. I will close the thread if it devolves into yet another fight over this issue.
Jn. 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”
Click to expand...
Moderator: Liturgy and Sacraments
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=43244
Click to expand...
 
So, based on the replies to my questions, the arguments for changing, in Roman Catholic dioceses, which had the practice for hundreds of years, from Communion on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman are:
  1. It’s approved because it’s approved;
  2. Internal dispostion trumps outer posture;
  3. Other rites allow/allowed it
  4. It was done at one time in the Roman Catholic Church(?)
Not hugely convincing, unless there are reasons for the recent approval by the Sacred Congregation Of Divine Worship at 1), above, which someone can point me to. Like, does anyone know what reasons did the Bishops, who requested it initially, give for wanting it?
 
Layman said:
Not hugely convincing, unless there are reasons for the recent approval by the Sacred Congregation Of Divine Worship …
Click to expand...
Of course there are no reasons. The Pope would never consider valid reasons in making an informed decision. We all know he did it simply to irritate you.

“More Catholic than the Pope” certainly seems to come to mind here. I’ll leave you to your pet peeves. Obviously nobody here is going to change your mind. Probably the Pope himself wouldn’t be able to do that. 😦

I wish you peace, but have my doubts you will find it.
 
Layman said:
So, based on the replies to my questions, the arguments for changing, in Roman Catholic dioceses, which had the practice for hundreds of years, from Communion on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman are:
  1. It’s approved because it’s approved;
  2. Internal dispostion trumps outer posture;
  3. Other rites allow/allowed it
  4. It was done at one time in the Roman Catholic Church(?)
Not hugely convincing, unless there are reasons for the recent approval by the Sacred Congregation Of Divine Worship at 1), above, which someone can point me to. Like, does anyone know what reasons did the Bishops, who requested it initially, give for wanting it?
Click to expand...
Well perhaps they were modernists and just wanted to change not only what the Church believes but also her practices. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
 
Layman said:
So, based on the replies to my questions, the arguments for changing, in Roman Catholic dioceses, which had the practice for hundreds of years, from Communion on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman are:
  1. It’s approved because it’s approved;
  2. Internal dispostion trumps outer posture;
  3. Other rites allow/allowed it
  4. It was done at one time in the Roman Catholic Church(?)
Not hugely convincing, unless there are reasons for the recent approval by the Sacred Congregation Of Divine Worship at 1), above, which someone can point me to. Like, does anyone know what reasons did the Bishops, who requested it initially, give for wanting it?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that why it was approved is little more than an academic point at this stage. The bottom line is that it has been in place for 40 years now and the Church has had plenty of time to consider whether or not the practice of communion in the hand ought to be continued or not.

As I mentioned earlier, rather than challenge others to convince you of the arguments on favor of the practice, maybe you should do some research on your own and try to understand why the leaders of the Church chose to allow it. While the method of receiving communion is not a matter of faith and morals, it seems the Church has spoken pretty authoritatively about it’s validity in the Latin Rite.

That you don’t care for the practice is pretty clear, but that seems to be based on your lack of understanding of why the Church allows it.
 
diggerdomer said:
nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf (see the Preamble especially)
Click to expand...
Do you mean in the the Foreword by Msgr. James P. Moroney?

“The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council have enjoyed great success in bringing many Catholics closer to the perfect sacrifice of praise that Christ the Lord offered from the wood of the Cross. Perhaps most of all, the reforms of the Missale Romanum, which regulates the celebration of the Eucharist as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 47), have been the cause and witness of this great work.”

This doesn’t explain how changing, in Roman Catholic dioceses, which had the practice for hundreds of years, from Communion on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest, at an altar rail, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman, benefits Catholics in those dioceses.

It’s just says the reforms are going great, without backing it up. Those documents are general instructions on how to do Mass, and why you do it, as far as I can work out.

I’d like some simple reasons for the changes; the benefits Bishops would have listed when applying for the indult. The benefits priests would have given the laity for introducing it in their church.
[Found these contrary articles when searching on Google:

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html”]http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
and this one is pro matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

There are lots of such web pages. They are lengthy and use technical language. A simple list of reasons would help me and maybe others reading this.]
 
Layman said:
A simple list of reasons would help me and maybe others reading this.]
Click to expand...
You know, I really don’t think they would help you at all since you have made up your mind and the fact that it is the Pope who makes the decision, based on HIS good reasons, doesn’t seem to be good enough for you.

In the end though, I don’t think this discussion is really about CITH at all. It is about your personal preconception–despite what the Church teaches relative to disciplines and all of Church history–that you have the “one right way” and that the entire world should bow to your wisdom and judgment. The fact that communion on the tongue and kneeling was a much later innovation after centuries of the norm being reception in the hand, and that receiving kneeling on the tongue has never in the Church’s history been a universal norm, just seems to make no difference to you at all. This “one size fits all” mentality just can’t seem to comprehend even the possiblity of their being an alternative or that, <gasp!!>, others might find their reverence in some other way. If someone else’s externals don’t match yours they just don’t measure up.

That is a very heavy cross you have picked up here and I really feel bad for you. For some perverse reason you just seem to revel in the misery it brings you. The thing is though that there is no virtue in carrying a cross of disdain and condemnation of your fellow Catholics; in fact it misses the whole point of “taking up your cross” to follow Jesus. It is in bearing those things that offend us with grace that we take up our cross to follow him.

I neither extol CITH or condemn it. I accept it as an acceptable practice of the Church and accept that people can show every bit as much reverence receiving that way–as the early saints and martyrs did–as they can receiving on the tongue. To answer one of your previous criticisms, Yes, interior dispostion does trump all external postures. In my eyes, it is this very obvious fixation on the externals, while ignoring the interior disposition, that has you so wrapped around the axle and so unable to regain your focus. As long as your gaze is fixed there nobody will be able to provide you any “explanation” that will satisfy you.

I can only wonder what great things you might be able to do for God if your amazing energy and devotion were applied toward lifting your brothers and sisters rather than pouting in the corner and tearing them down.

Peace be with you.
 
You are making assumptions about my interior disposition in this matter and my feelings about my fellow Catholics, neither of which, regardless, are relevant to my question:

What reasons would Roman Catholic Bishops have listed when applying for the indult for changing, in Roman Catholic dioceses, which had the practice for hundreds of years, from Communion on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest, at an altar rail, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman, which would benefit Catholics in those dioceses?
 
Personally I prefer taking communion on my tongue following my bow to the host and an Amen. :signofcross:
I would further prefer to go back to kneeling at the rail with of course exceptions for those unable to kneel.
And, perhaps we should return to Latin as the language of the mass especially nowadays with the mixture of language heritages at masses which only adds to confusion and not a joining under one banner of faith.
 
Layman said:
You are making assumptions about my interior disposition in this matter and my feelings about my fellow Catholics, neither of which, regardless, are relevant to my question:

What reasons would Roman Catholic Bishops have listed when applying for the indult for changing, in Roman Catholic dioceses, which had the practice for hundreds of years, from Communion on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest, at an altar rail, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman, which would benefit Catholics in those dioceses?
Click to expand...
No, I’m making no assumptions about your interior dispostition at all. Simply commenting on your own very plain and overt statements and disparagements which are abundantly available. And your link on Vatican II, with its abundant errors, gives a pretty good idea of where things are coming from.

Your question has been answered dozens of times and the information is pretty readily available for your reading, regardless of the fact that it is irrelevant. The Popes accepted the reasons and ruled it to be licit and acceptable and their decision on the matter is sufficient, whether you like that or not. And since it is licit and acceptable in the eyes of the Church, your continued denigration of fellow Catholics for following something that is allowed is quite frankly unacceptable. You are allowed to dislike it and indulge your own preference; you are not allowed to look down on the legitimate preferences of others.

THAT is what this whole discussion is really about. And I will leave it at that. Carry that cross as far as you wish. Maybe it will eventually get heavy enough to put down.
 
Layman said:
Errr… I’m just looking for some simple reasons.
Click to expand...
Layman…they are out there if you care to look. As I said in a previous post, and similar to the point ncjohn is making, you seem to be saying that unless someone can justify the Church’s granting of the indult you will continue to somehow reject it.

The fact is that the Church has granted the indult. Communion in the hand is considered both valid and licit. If you can’t grasp the reason behind it, it’s not a fault of the Church but of your own understanding.

If you don’t understand why the Church has approved the practice, it is incumbent on you to either do the work and research to understand it, or accept it as a matter of obedience. To continue to nail your thesis to the virtual church door of this forum starts you down a well-worn path that doesn’t really lead to anything good.

The Sacred Congregation of Divine worship has approved of the practice of CITH and issued guidelines for it’s implementation. The Holy Father has allowed the practice to continue, and the USCCB has issued unequivocal statements endorsing the practice. Given that, the question really comes down to why you aren’t willing to accept the practice as a legitimate means to receive the Eucharist? You haven’t said it, but the implication is that you are somehow smarter than the collective wisdom of the Church on the matter.
 
ricmat said:
Funny, as I was browsing this thread, this “Catholic Quote” appeared on the upper right portion of my screen:

“Approaching, do not come with your palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making your left hand a seat for your right, and hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest you drop any of it.”

– Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, Saint; on the proper technique for receiving Holy Communion in the hand (circa A.D. 347).

I don’t know if the Quote thing is automated or not :confused:
Click to expand...
You said it:thumbsup:
Nice that we have a choice though, so that we can argue all we want but we’re all right in a sense.
 
I would’ve thought that giving reasons would be simple, given all the debate about this practice on this forum and elsewhere.

I don’t think I’m obliged to wade through internet sites and long technical documents to try to find spiritual or didactic benefits a Bishop might cite to justify changing a Roman Catholic diocese to this practice. I’m not sure I’d find any. It could be a waste of time.

If no one here knows, fair enough.
To: NCJohn. If you’re referring to the link about Vatican II in my signature, it’s on the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales’ web site. You should email them about the errors you say they have. They are an important and, as far as I know, well-regarded lay Catholic organisation and have the co-operation of the some of the hierarchy in the UK. I doubt they’d knowingly print errors.
 
I would like to interject something that I don’t believe has been addressed. Prior to our current move, we lived in the southwest and were fortunate to have a traditional parish. Our pastor encouraged communion on the tongue as a sign of reverence and humility but there was an even more important reason. A couple of times consecrated hosts had been found on the floor by the janitors. It was assumed children not of age to make their first communion yet, had held out their hand in imitation of what they had seen. (Wherever were the parents?) After these were found, our pastor voiced his very real fear that there was a much greater chance of intentional defilement and/or sacrilege when communion was given in the hand.

I was convicted in my spirit long before he spoke of this, though, to only receive on the tongue. I’m not sure how this happened……it simply became very uncomfortable for me to receive in the hand.

And something else you may want to consider in these current times – the WHO has issued a pandemic of swine flu infection! At the Sign of Peace aren’t germs transferred from your hand to your mouth via our Lord’s Precious Body when you receive in the hand? And haven’t some parishes discontinued distribution of the Precious Blood for this reason?
 
Layman said:
Errr… I’m just looking for some simple reasons.
Click to expand...
Ok, one simple reason if you’re forcing the issue is that Jesus and the Apostles did it.

Another simple reason is that’s always been part of the Catholic tradition.

But, remember, history and theology and faith and sacraments and life are not all “simple.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top