The question is what does the Church Jesus founded teach about the proper way to receive communion? You are, because of this teaching, more than welcome to receive on the tongue. What you are not welcome to do is imply that this is the only way it should be done and denigrate those who disagree with you.
Like I said, the GIRM is not infallible. And, yes, the Church’s law says that the licit way to receive Communion is on the tongue… the only time it is done otherwise is when and indult is granted to practice something that opposes the law of the Church, which receiving on the hand does. The Church does NOT say i is proper to receive on the hand, they just that it can be done… I have not read anything saying that.
So you are contening that the Church has knowingly approved an improper way of receiving the Body of Christ!!! I am not sure I could put much trust in an organization that would willingly lead millions of people astray in this . Fortunately, although the GIRM may not be infallibe, you most certainly are not either. I will continue to look to my church for guidance on this issue.
then you do not fully understand my stance… to do that, you would have to read every single post that I have made on this discussion.
I may not have understood what you meant…but the words you chose to use were indeed harsh and insulting. And in the post to which you refer me, you again talk about grabbing.
WHAT? I can’t comment about what happens where you are, but in both the churches I attend (in two different countries), we receive the Lord in our hands, step to one side and immediately place Him in our mouth. Should anyone do otherwise they would be reprimanded right there and then; at the smaller church the priests administer communion and they watch what yo do; at the huge one we have all 3 priests and 7 EMHC, (no chalice is offered here) each with a patten-holding assistant, both of whom check that no abuse takes place.
When did the Church assign you the job of protecting the Eucharist. And who are you protecting the Eucharist from?then you do not fully understand my stance… to do that, you would have to read every single post that I have made on this discussion.
I want to protect the Eucharist… each particle that is split from the Host is Jesus Christ, and little particles sometimes fall off the Host when the Host is in the hand, then the person picks up the host with their opposite hand and places Jesus in their mouth. Then, they usually move the hand that first received Jesusin away that anything that was on the hand falls off the hand… inculding htose tiny particles. I do not want that to occur. Also, if we see someone receive on the tongue and not with the hand, then it is harder for them to steal the host as a satanist who wants to perform a black mass… they cannot slip the host into their sleeve from the palm of their hand because the altar server would notice if they tried to take the Host by the hand… and when we receive on the tongue, you can tell if someone takes the host out of their mouth during Mass… to preserve it for desecration. and, if they wait until after Mass, then at least some of the pieces of the Host will have had to be consumed and perhaps it would be less likely for them to get each piece of the host off their tongue or whatever.
Also, it is about what is truly going on with the grace and whatnot as I have explained earlier.
Pax Domini tecum.
Ja…I’ve seen this argument given as the reason why communion on the tongue is “better” - it is very simple to check for and resectfuly handle any particles that may remain on your hand.
So it’s done because it’s allowed? i.e. It’s allowed because it’s allowed. Not hugely convincing.
If you really look to your Church re which is the proper way to receive the Holy Eucharist, you’ll receive on the tongue. That is the universal law of the Church.
So Church is wrong to allow us to receive communion in the hand? If so what else are they wrong about? The Ressurection? The Real presence?
So you think that CITH is on par with Arianism & Jansenism?
No, ,that’s the ROman Missal translation that is in the works. There are no pending changes to the GIRM that have been made public.
Of course it’s not infallible. Has anyone in this thread claimed otherwise? But it is more than a discipline, unless you understand “discipline” to include “liturgical law.” Of course disciplines and most legislation can be changed.
What about the pieces that may be too small to see? What do you do then?
Just an fyi, In the U.S. Church, the approved norm for the Ordinary Form is either on the tongue or in the hand. Not one or the other, it’s entirely left to the communicant. Personal preferences are fine of course, but just that: personal preferences. There is no other norm that binds the U.S. Church other than the one the Vatican approved.
Arianism and Jansenism are heresies. CITH is a discipline. So far, no one has given me a credible reason for introducing it into a Roman Catholic diocese where COTT, kneeling, from a priest, was the norm.
Why would anyone have to give you a reason for introducing COTT?
It seems that you relate the discipline of receiving the Eucharist in your hand to the dogma concerning the Ressurection & the Real Presence. ODD, indeed.
True, but that other rites do it show that it is not irreverent, or are you saying that they are?
Actually “it’s allowed” is good enough. The Church has determined that it is CITH is allowable, there is no need for us to determine why it is allowed as the Church allows it where the bishop has decided to allow for it.