So-called liturgical abuse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MichelleTherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MichelleTherese

Guest
If receiving communion is an ancient practice from the very first days of the Church (later changed to receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling by the Monk Alcuin who assisted King Charlemagne) WHY am I constantly being told that it is a liturgical abuse? If receiving in the hand was the way that it was done in the past why should it be considered wrong or bad?

Why am I being told that the only “proper” way to receive communion is by kneeling and receiving on the tongue?

I’m confused here…
 
40.png
MichelleTherese:
If receiving communion is an ancient practice from the very first days of the Church (later changed to receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling by the Monk Alcuin who assisted King Charlemagne) WHY am I constantly being told that it is a liturgical abuse? If receiving in the hand was the way that it was done in the past why should it be considered wrong or bad?

Why am I being told that the only “proper” way to receive communion is by kneeling and receiving on the tongue?

I’m confused here…
Click to expand...
You are being told the wrong thing.
You are allowed to receive on the tongue or in the hand. Both are allowed and neither is an abuse.
 
40.png
MichelleTherese:
If receiving communion is an ancient practice from the very first days of the Church (later changed to receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling by the Monk Alcuin who assisted King Charlemagne) WHY am I constantly being told that it is a liturgical abuse? If receiving in the hand was the way that it was done in the past why should it be considered wrong or bad?

Why am I being told that the only “proper” way to receive communion is by kneeling and receiving on the tongue?

I’m confused here…
Click to expand...
You’re being told this by people who (I think) honestly believe that communion on the tongue is more reverent, holier, better than communion in the hand. Of course, this also means they are putting forth their personal opinions/beliefs/feelings over the teachings of the Church. Since you will never convince them otherwise, simply acknowledge that they believe that and do what the Church permits – make a personal choice and don’t feel you have to justify your position.

Deacon Ed
 
So it ISN’T a liturgical abuse. WHEW!!

I’ll just ignore folk that say otherwise. God bless!!
 
40.png
thistle:
You are being told the wrong thing.
You are allowed to receive on the tongue or in the hand. Both are allowed and neither is an abuse.
Click to expand...
HOWEVER in the US Kneeling to recieve communion is an abuse.
 
40.png
estesbob:
HOWEVER in the US Kneeling to recieve communion is an abuse.
Click to expand...
I believe you are incorrect there. While I agree that approved the norm for receiving communion in the US is standing (on tongue or in hand), I have read a number of responses to questions about kneeling (one from Cardinal Arinze comes to mind) where the answer was that no one was to be denied communion because they are kneeling.

I’ve heard that some priests don’t like it, and I suppose it could be considered disobedient if the diocesan bishop has requested otherwise. But while it might not be the norm in the US, but I don’t think it would be considered an abuse.

Just my opinion.
 
40.png
OhioBob:
I believe you are incorrect there. While I agree that approved the norm for receiving communion in the US is standing (on tongue or in hand), I have read a number of responses to questions about kneeling (one from Cardinal Arinze comes to mind) where the answer was that no one was to be denied communion because they are kneeling.

I’ve heard that some priests don’t like it, and I suppose it could be considered disobedient if the diocesan bishop has requested otherwise. But while it might not be the norm in the US, but I don’t think it would be considered an abuse.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
NOR may they be called disobedient.
 
You are being told that receiving in the hands is abuse by ultra-traditionalists who blieve that anything that was changed after Vatican II is automatically bad. More often that not these folks have no idea that what they criticize as bad is exactly how it was done in the early days of the Church.

For instance, they will say that current Masses are invalid because they are not in Latin when the Masses were never in Latin until hundreds of years after Christ.
 
I’m trying desperately to find a reference to s homily by St Cyril of Jerusalem - where he describes how to make your hands a throne to Receive Christ in Communion .

It’s a truly wonderful piece of writing.

So for those how say that Communion in the hand is a result of Vat II = ** no NO NO !! ** - it’s a truly venerable practice.
 
FOUND IT 😃
“Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.” “Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses” (Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21-22).
Click to expand...
 
In some countries it is an liturgical abuse (failing to follow the liturgical laws) to receive Communion in the hand.

According to ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm permission for this was given to the dioceses of:
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977

So in 1976 it was a liturgical abuse to receive Communion in the hand in Scotland, but not in Australia.
 
40.png
OhioBob:
I believe you are incorrect there. While I agree that approved the norm for receiving communion in the US is standing (on tongue or in hand), I have read a number of responses to questions about kneeling (one from Cardinal Arinze comes to mind) where the answer was that no one was to be denied communion because they are kneeling.

I’ve heard that some priests don’t like it, and I suppose it could be considered disobedient if the diocesan bishop has requested otherwise. But while it might not be the norm in the US, but I don’t think it would be considered an abuse.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Thy instructions are that you dont publicly deny them communion BUT counsel them in private that Kneeling is inapropriate. Heck in our counry even avowed abortion supporters can get communion!
 
The insutructions were in effect, over ruled by 3 letters from the CDW to the US bishops on the matter, and these 3 letters were strongly worded that a communicant who knealt for communion should not be considered dis obidient nor imposed upon. If someone else tells you otherwise, they do not understand the difference between canon law and norms.
40.png
estesbob:
Thy instructions are that you dont publicly deny them communion BUT counsel them in private that Kneeling is inapropriate. Heck in our counry even avowed abortion supporters can get communion!
Click to expand...
 
Oh, all these people who want to receive Communion in the hand, like it’s the 3rd Century or something. :nope: It’s so sad.

When will these people adopt the more modern, progressive practice of receiving on the tongue?

Vatican II threw the windows of the Church wide open so a new, fresh spring breeze could blow through. Clinging to ancient practices does nothing to move us forward.

Down with regressive troglodytism! Up with forward thinking practices like Communion on the tongue! :clapping:
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
You are being told that receiving in the hands is abuse by ultra-traditionalists who blieve that anything that was changed after Vatican II is automatically bad. More often that not these folks have no idea that what they criticize as bad is exactly how it was done in the early days of the Church.

For instance, they will say that current Masses are invalid because they are not in Latin when the Masses were never in Latin until hundreds of years after Christ.
Click to expand...
I would have to assume that at least some of them were in Latin in the early days of the church. Latin was the language of Rome and was widely spoken throughout the empire. In fact the use of Latin was one of the few ways in which the disparate ethnic groups could communicate. Now it is no doubt true that Aramaic, Greek, possibly Hebrew and other lnguages were also used in gatherings where the people spoke those languages.

Now as far as the Masss being codified in Latin, I would imagine that took place around the time of Constantine if not before.

That does bring up an interesting question, When did Latin become the official language of the Church and when was it dictated that the Mass be in Latin?
 
40.png
JNB:
The insutructions were in effect, over ruled by 3 letters from the CDW to the US bishops on the matter, and these 3 letters were strongly worded that a communicant who knealt for communion should not be considered dis obidient nor imposed upon. If someone else tells you otherwise, they do not understand the difference between canon law and norms.
Click to expand...
Actually I read it in these Forums. Some people had some impressive evidence that you werent supossed to do it(kneel) evidently you disagree and have some impressive evidence its OK. Since i stand when I recieve its not an issue to me.

I never said it was cannon law-Iam aware that it varies from place to place-for instance when i go to Cozumel every April NOBODY recieves it in the hand-i go with what appears to be the norm.
 
Dr. Bombay:
Down with regressive troglodytism! Up with forward thinking practices like Communion on the tongue! :clapping:
Click to expand...
Doc you’re such a progressive! 😉
 
40.png
OhioBob:
Doc you’re such a progressive! 😉
Click to expand...
Thanks, Bob. :tiphat: I’ve been trying for some time now to drag these people who advocate musty old practices like Communion in the hand and Mass in languages other than Latin to stumble into the 21st Century with the rest of us. But Traditionalists are very stubborn.

Someday, I’m confident the spirit of Vatican II will prevail everywhere and we’ll once again have Latin Masses and Communion on the tongue while kneeling and we can leave behind those other practices where they belong: long buried in the past.

Ahhhhhh…what’s that I smell?? Smells like a new springtime!
 
Smells like teen spirit. . . 😃

Although that is actually somewhat serious; it is the few of us on the shadier side of 40 and those under 20 who seem to be among the Dr. Bombay progressives. . .
 
40.png
MichelleTherese:
If receiving communion is an ancient practice from the very first days of the Church (later changed to receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling by the Monk Alcuin who assisted King Charlemagne) WHY am I constantly being told that it is a liturgical abuse? If receiving in the hand was the way that it was done in the past why should it be considered wrong or bad?

Why am I being told that the only “proper” way to receive communion is by kneeling and receiving on the tongue?

I’m confused here…
Click to expand...
The Eastern Catholics have always received in the hand. So I don’t see how one way could be proper. Some just see it as more reverent in the tongue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top