Resistance to Church Law

[agnes_therese]

Come on now. As a server at a TLM, yes, you would indeed see every Host dropped. You are standing next to the priest. As a layman standing in a line, unless you are leaning and intentionally watching up ahead for falling Hosts, then of course you wouldn’t see every one that falls as you would as a server. So your argument is flawed isn’t it ?

With CITH, standing, there is seldom a paten used. With COTT at the rail, there is a paten and a Communion Rail. So yes, even though Hosts do indeed hit the floor from time to time, COTT while kneeling at the rail lessens the chance.

We always use patens at my parish, and most people receive in the hand.

 

[lauermar]

In answer to a question about the EF–I attend a TLM every Sunday. We have communion rails. The handicapped take their communion down the center aisle. There are only a few of them, but my pastor tells me most of them take it on the tongue. A few take it on the hand. The rest of us simply kneel and take it the traditional way. There is no drama or fanfare. Basically everybody gets what they want.

I suppose if someone wants to dramatize their reception, they can do so by kissing the host before putting it on their own tongue–in front of someone important like Mother Theresa so that it gets broadcast around the world. I’m not expressing any opinion pro or against this, just making an observation.

 

[lcburgundy]

It’s interesting that a large number of parishes have ushers posted to assure that communicants actually communicate rather than carry the Host back to their pew. And how the pews need to be checked immediately after every Sunday Mass to assure that hosts weren’t left in, or under, the pew.

Wow. Where are people attending Mass that this sort of disobedience actually occurs with enough regularity that ushers actually need to be trained to check for it? I was an usher for 4 years at a college parish and I never, ever found a host anywhere on or under a pew after mass, nor did I watch to make sure everyone “behaved themselves” at Communion. I have NEVER found a stray host at any point at or after any Mass.

 

[april32010]

As usual, misinformation reigns supreme. Further, as Br. JR has pointed out, the term “disobedient” is one bandied about by those who are strongly opposed to CITH. It was allowed by some bishops who, surprise of surprises, were the chief liturgists in their dioceses (as bishops are to this day) and that canonists were not in agreement that it was disobedience when the bishops allowed it without seeking approval from Rome. And, like most things, one can find someone who supports their position if one searches enough; but sadly, the “opposition” is usually ignored.

Pope John Paul II, Interview, 1980 “There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it."

Blessed John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb 24, 1980
“In some countries the practice of receiving communion in the hand has bee introduced… However, cases of deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior, but also to the pastors of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist.

Cardinal Llovera, Prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, 2008
“What does it mean to receive Communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What does it mean to kneel during the Consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him… That is why it is not the same to place the host in the hand, and to receive Communion in any fashion; it is not the same to receive Communion kneeling or standing up, because all of these signs indicate a profound meaning.”

 

[markomalley]

Wow. Where are people attending Mass that this sort of disobedience actually occurs with enough regularity that ushers actually need to be trained to check for it? I was an usher for 4 years at a college parish and I never, ever found a host anywhere on or under a pew after mass, nor did I watch to make sure everyone “behaved themselves” at Communion. I have NEVER found a stray host at any point at or after any Mass.

Seeing somebody take the Host back to the pew for consumption is not that uncommon…not all the time, but often enough where our previous pastor judged it necessary.

Somebody taking a host with them after Mass, because a spouse or child is ill and could not come to Mass is more common.

Leaving a Host at the pew is rare, but does happen. Maybe only once or twice a year. But once is too much, isn’t it?

 

[agnes_therese]

april32010:
Yes, April, we saw those quotes all the other times you’ve posted them, too.

The fact remains that, regardless of your opinion, the Church allows CITH. If you don’t approve, you don’t have to receive that way.

Instead of trying to convince those who receive in the hand that they’re wrong/irreverent/whatever, why not spend your energy lobbying the bishops and the Vatican to withdraw the indult?

 

[Philosoraptor]

why not spend your energy lobbying the bishops and the Vatican to withdraw the indult?

A fabulous idea! Why don’t we all do this?

 

[Brendan_64]

A fabulous idea! Why don’t we all do this?

Because most of us (in the UK, the USA and the other places where the indult applies) are perfectly happy receiving Communion in the hand. If it was good enough for the early Church, it’s good enough for the Church today.

 

[porthos11]

After being in the mood in which men of old burnt witches,

False!!! Lies, outright lies!!!

Witches were hanged.

Back to your regular scheduled programming

 

[Sirach2]

A fabulous idea! Why don’t we all do this?

Because not ‘all’ share your opinion, as is evident in this thread and the hundreds of others on this same topic that gets beaten to death. Obviously, people aren’t listening – the horse has died.

 

[Sirach2]

Yes, April, we saw those quotes all the other times you’ve posted them, too.

The fact remains that, regardless of your opinion, the Church allows CITH. If you don’t approve, you don’t have to receive that way.

She probably hopes that promoting repeatedly that a pope and a cardinal disapprove, we will all automatically succomb to the wishes of those who espouse COTT. Interestingly, Pope John Paul as Supreme Pontiff could have removed the indult, but chose not to. That tells a strong story, that it was his opinion, but that the Church is not going to change her licit reception in the hand.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

As we continue to beat this dead horse, I will share with you the opening post in a thread that I started that is now closed.

Fr. Chauvet’s words really spoke to me. While I have no problem with anyone who wants to receive COTT, I do have problems with those who say that I should not have the option. The Church has spoken, why aren’t we listening?

 

[agnes_therese]

Obviously, people aren’t listening – the horse has died.

Died, been buried, decomposed into dust . . . and still the poor thing is beaten regularly.

 

[salusanimarum17]

Not sure why people who think this is dead horse beating participate in it, basically egging others on to continue the beating.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be addressing the following question: “why does it seem as if there is resentment towards those who receive on the tongue, and how can we correct them in truth and love?”

To say that “it seems as if” this exists makes things pretty nebulous. Leaving that aside, to answer that question we need to have the (name removed by moderator)ut of those who think receiving in the hand is preferred or better. Such people are hard to find in these forums, it seems to me. As to how to correct them, reference should be made to the current law and historical practice. Beyond that, I don’t know what can be done.

 

[sw85]

What “resistance”? Anyone who wishes to receive on tongue may do so, but if the Church says you may receive on the hand then She has the authority to say so; there is no disobedience to it. The Bible does not say the Apostles received on the tongue at the Last Supper and it does not say Jesus told them to receive one way or the other.

He’s talking about resistance on the part of those trying to forbid/restrict communion on the tongue against Church law.

Refer to boldface above–this is pretty harsh, and it’s way outside of Catholic Church teaching.

But this isn’t a question of “Church teaching.” It’s a question of disciplines. That means it’s prudential by definition, not doctrinal, not dogmatic. Which means we can, in good faith, discuss whether the current policy is ideal or not. Which means the question at hand is “Should the Church’s current policy be X?” Answering this question with “The Church’s current policy is X!!!”, for obvious reasons, doesn’t answer the question. It’s not even relevant.

All I’m saying is that receiving Communion on the tongue, or in the hand are both perfectly acceptable ways to receive Communion. Our Church believes this to be the case otherwise it would not permit them in any circumstances. Perhaps we (laity and clergy) should just get over ourselves and accept the same.The Body of Christ is no more special in either form of Mass, so the method of receiving Him ought to be acceptable in either form of Mass.

Again, though, nobody disputes that it is “perfectly acceptable” if by “perfectly acceptable” you mean “consistent with current Church law.” But you are equivocating here between “perfectly acceptable” in that sense and “perfectly acceptable” in the sense of being equally as good, fitting, beautiful, whatever, as COTT.

I think there’s a very good argument to make re: COTT that has to do with how Mass is experienced. Mass isn’t just a lecture after all, we experience it with all of our senses, participate in it with all of our bodies. It’s fitting then that the way we conduct ourselves at Mass should conform to the soteriological truths which the Mass expresses. One of these is our absolute subjection to Jesus Christ, which I think is expressed very fittingly by reservation of which hands are allowed to touch him and what posture is appropriate for receiving him.

Again, that’s a prudential argument, meaning I’m allowed to make it and you’re allowed to disagree with it and we’re allowed to have that kind of conversation. In other words, again, “the Church currently allows X” doesn’t mean X was handed down on stone tablets on Mt. Sinai, nor that X is necessarily the best course of action.

In any case, this horse has been beaten to death, things are not going to change, it’s one of those things that people are not going to agree on, but the Church has spoken and has the final say.

Things are not going to change? Things changed in living memory, they can easily change again.

This horse has been flayed, beaten, and otherwise beat up. The opinions are just that - opinions. Playing the “this is holier” routine meanwhile distracts us from Christ.

Meh.

(1) Here again, “the Church allows it” does not mean “it’s equally good/valid/proper/fitting/whatever,” that discussion on it is closed, etc.

(2) You don’t get to decide what conversations do/don’t “distract us from Christ” or what conversations we’re allowed to have on that basis.

(3) Accusing people who entertain the legitimate prudential opinion (as, evidently, JPII did) that communion in the hand is suboptimal in terms of expressing fully the truths of the faith as they are experienced at Mass of insincerely mouthing pious-sounding platitudes (for what purpose, exactly? Because they’d receive such a warm reception at CAF?) is hardly the height of the charity to which you’re invoking us.

 

[fnr]

Why is it that there seems to be resistance to the faithful wishing to receive the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue? Why would anyone object to the faithful who wish to honor It more by their very posture?
Instead, why does it seem as if there is resentment towards those who receive on the tongue, and how can we correct them in truth and love?

I see nothing wrong with receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue if it is your preference and choice. If someone views it as the only valid means to accept the body of the Lord, it seems a bit like idolatry to me.

 

[Aramis]

The reverse situation can also occur.

While Communion on the tongue is the universal norm, if dispensation has been granted in that area to allow Communion in the hand then Communion in the hand is permitted in both the OF and EF forms of Mass.

If it is now common practice in that particular liturgy to receive in a particular way, ought we not respect that practice and receive accordingly? Should this not cut both ways?

How would someone holding out their hands to receive be regarded at an EF Mass?

Either method of receiving ought to be permitted, without question, at either form of the Mass.

The EF is governed by the 1962 GIRM. Which said, the 1962 GIRM only allows kneeling on the tongue, with a very few exceptions for unusual circumstances.

 

[lauermar]

I second everything that April quoted. JPII never suspended the indult for CITH (even though he prefers COTT) because of the stubbornness of men.

JPII’s quote about lack of respect for the sacred species in some parishes due to pastors not being vigilant enough reminded me of something Padre Pio said. He was visited by a purgatorial soul who had once been a friar. The friar had gone to purgatory because he was negligent in his altar cleaning duties. Wow. If this story is true, I wouldn’t want to be one of JPII’s aforementioned pastors.

mysticsofthechurch.com/2012/04/amazing-stories-from-purgatory-and.html

 

[agnes_therese]

I second everything that April quoted. JPII never suspended the indult for CITH (even though he prefers COTT) because of the stubbornness of men.

Do you have some evidence to back up this accusation that Blessed John Paul II was, to put it bluntly, a coward? Because that’s exactly what you’re saying. I’d be very interested in reading his explanation of why he wanted to suspend it but didn’t.