Solving the decline in belief of the Real Presence.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Primitive
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Genesis315:
What is the point of receiving in the hand? Why was this practice changed? I know I’ve read at least one really early Church father who when describing Mass mentions reception in the hand, however I can see many benefits to reception on the tongue: our hands have not been washed like the priest’s have, they are not washed afterward in a way to make sure no particles are lost, people cannot sneak hosts away as easily, there is less of a chance of dropping the Host since the paton can remain under the host, while the person usually is walking away as they put it in their mouth with their hand, etc. On the other hand, I can’t really think of any benefits to reception in the hand. So why would we go back to reception in the hand? What’s the point?
Click to expand...
Because the Church allows it and because some people prefer to follow what was done in the early Church.
 
40.png
Purificator:
Because the Church allows it and because some people prefer to follow what was done in the early Church.
Click to expand...
But why does the Church allow it? And as for the early Church, sometimes things develop organically for a reason. The Church can figure out over time which disciplinary things work better. To use the early Church argument, why not go back to married priests and bishops? I think most of us (in the Latin Church at least) will agree the discipline of celibacy is more beneficial. Do you see my point? Why is this older practice more beneficial than on the tongue? What was the Church’s reasoning?
 
I believe the real reason for the decline in the belief in the real presence is twofold.

#1 Too many Catholics believe what they hear from our Evangelical and fundamentalist brothers and sisters who do not believe in it and rationalize in many ways to give their evidence to support their arguments.

#2 Too many Catholics are walking around with a child’s viewpoint of it all without growing up with the sacraments in general. If all adult Catholics took the time to get the “ADULT” understanding of the Church’s mysteries and sacraments there would be a much better understanding and therefore a much stronger devotion. And to add to this point if adults had this better understanding then less and less would be falling for what happens in #1
 
Genesis315 said:
But why does the Church allow it? And as for the early Church, sometimes things develop organically for a reason. The Church can figure out over time which disciplinary things work better. To use the early Church argument, why not go back to married priests and bishops? I think most of us (in the Latin Church at least) will agree the discipline of celibacy is more beneficial. Do you see my point? Why is this older practice more beneficial than on the tongue? What was the Church’s reasoning?
Click to expand...

Who cares? It does. It’s a done deal. And no, it’s not more reverent to receive on the tongue.
 
40.png
Purificator:
Who cares? It does. It’s a done deal. And no, it’s not more reverent to receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
I think all of us should care. Are you saying we should throw out the accumulated wisdom of the Church and start over from scratch each generation? Pardon my bluntness, but that is just stupid. We should be trying to find out why communion on the tongue became the norm. We should have found out why communion in the hand fell out of favor. If there was a good reason, then we shouldn’t have allowed standing while receiving in the hand.

For every person that claims the early church did this or that, remember the early church was feeling its way, trying different things since there was no hierarchy to lead the way. Many things were done that were found later to be unworkable or heretical. Should we go back to separating the women from the men? Making non Catholics to leave before the Consecration? Sack cloth and ashes for penance? Communion in the hand?
 
40.png
Genesis315:
As for the lack of belief in the Real Presence, I think it has to do with Liberalism, Humanism, Rationalism, and the rest. “It’s unreasonable to my modern enlightened sensibilities that the little wafer is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, therefore I don’t believe it is. I’m too smart to believe hokey unscientific stuff like that.” That’ what I think the problem is.
Click to expand...
Yet they’ll buy into all sorts of other bizzare stuff.
 
40.png
Purificator:
Who cares? It does. It’s a done deal. And no, it’s not more reverent to receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
With respect, the Church always has to be able to show the antecedents for what She does. We don’t just hive off and start something new. To argue the other side (and I agree with you if you read my posts), rails were introduced to emphasize something, as was communion on the tongue. What was that emphasis? The sanctity of the sacred space of the sanctuary and What was being rec. there. My point is that many people (not so much on this thread) think this was the earliest practice. It wasn’t. I also do not think that the absence of communion on the tongue or altar rails is a reason for the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. I do not think that communion on the tongue or altar rails (kneeling at them for reception) is holier or of necessity more reverent (precisely because the Apostles and Fathers did NOT do it, and I, at least, cannot claim to be holier than they, some of whom looked upon the Savior’s sweet Face). Reverence is an interior disposition. I would not, however, bemoan a return to either, as their purposes are to emphasize something important. I just want people to argue accurately and logically. It seems to me better to argue from “what are we trying to emphasize?,” instead of attempting to A) rewrite history or B) make people who recieve in the hand feel that they are committing a sacriledge, when the Apostles and the Fathers did the same. I also believe we can safely leave it to the communicants, as the last few popes seem to have felt.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
But why does the Church allow it? And as for the early Church, sometimes things develop organically for a reason. The Church can figure out over time which disciplinary things work better. To use the early Church argument, why not go back to married priests and bishops? I think most of us (in the Latin Church at least) will agree the discipline of celibacy is more beneficial. Do you see my point? Why is this older practice more beneficial than on the tongue? What was the Church’s reasoning?
Click to expand...
Well said!

And I do find Communion on the tounge superior in reverence and don’t see the point in accepting something like Hand Communion for no real reason other that “oh, but we’ve done it like this before”…I get those remarks at work all the time, that is why nothing ever improves, because people don’t want to raise the standard…

😃 It is like the difference between taking your wife to a four star resturaunt and fast food on your Anniversary…I wouldn’t dare tell a woman “oh, but honey, it’s the same thing, we are eating and spending or time together…who cares if it is fast food?”…Ummm no, we should know better than to treat a beloved wife with less than the best…We should show them they are our true love.
We should also show God we are not to proud to kneel before Him in love, and adoration…after all, He is a King you know.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
I think all of us should care. Are you saying we should throw out the accumulated wisdom of the Church and start over from scratch each generation? Pardon my bluntness, but that is just stupid. **We should be trying to find out why communion on the tongue became the norm. ** We should have found out why communion in the hand fell out of favor. If there was a good reason, then we shouldn’t have allowed standing while receiving in the hand.

For every person that claims the early church did this or that, remember the early church was feeling its way, trying different things since there was no hierarchy to lead the way. Many things were done that were found later to be unworkable or heretical. Should we go back to separating the women from the men? Making non Catholics to leave before the Consecration? Sack cloth and ashes for penance? Communion in the hand?
Click to expand...
1.) You’re you suggesting the Church ignored its own “accumulated wisdom” when it once again allowed in-hand/standing?

2.) What we should be doing is following what the Church actually directs, and not what our personal interpretation of history suggests.

3.) In the end it boils down to this: It’s not your call – it’s up to Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Primitive:
Well said!

And **I do find Communion on the tounge superior in reverence ** and don’t see the point in accepting something like Hand Communion for no real reason other that “oh, but we’ve done it like this before”…I get those remarks at work all the time, that is why nothing ever improves, because people don’t want to raise the standard…
.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church officially disagrees with you on this matter. To suggest the Church allows an inferior method to receive Holy Communion is simply not believeable.
 
I was in high school when all the drastic changes in the liturgy and church renovations were implemented. From freshman to senior year, we were plunged into an entirely different church and mass experience, with exceedingly sparse catechesis on the reason for the changes, which seemed to come almost weekly, without preparation, just another horrid surprise so you were afraid to go to Church. My mother, a convert from methodism, said often she understood how the English must have felt during Henry VIII and Edward VI despoiling of the monasteries and despoiling of churches and corruption of liturgy. Forty hours devotions disappeared, casual dress and poorly executed secular music replaced Sunday clothes and classic Church music.

I recall quite plainly having passionate discussions in religion class particularly about removal of communion rails, reception in the hand, moving the tabernacle to an inconspicuous place, and what this said about the Real Presence. The overwhelming impression we received, and the nuns did very little to dispel it, was that the Church clearly no longer believed in the Real Presence but was systematically reducing Eucharist to a symbol rather than a reality. Heard very little from the pulpit, or my kids’ Catholic schooling to dispel that feeling. Was not until seeking orthodox catechist formation classes in the 90s that I found the truth again.

To me it is incredible that anyone brought up after 1965 would internalize full knowledge and appreciation of the theology of the Eucharist (and the priesthood) or belief in the Real Presence. Pedagogically, everything in most modern parishes works against it.
 
Purificator said:
1.) You’re you suggesting the Church ignored its own “accumulated wisdom” when it once again allowed in-hand/standing?

2.) What we should be doing is following what the Church actually directs, and not what our personal interpretation of history suggests.

3.) In the end it boils down to this: It’s not your call – it’s up to Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, which I am sure you will do, but:
  1. Yes I am suggesting that Pope John Paul II ignored history when he gave permission to the American bishops to distribute communion in the hand. What started out as an illicit practice was granted legitimacy, but only in the United States. The norm elsewhere is on the tongue.
  2. I do follow what the Church directs. I can’t say all the bishops an priests in the U.S. do the same.
  3. You are correct that it is not my call, but it is my soul. I will follow the rules that were in effect for 1500 years–I am positive those rules are not in error.
 
40.png
Purificator:
The Catholic Church officially disagrees with you on this matter. To suggest the Church allows an inferior method to receive Holy Communion is simply not believeable.
Click to expand...
May I see this in writing? 🙂 :confused:

Someone knowledgable will hopefully correct me if I am wrong, but:…
The standards for the reception of reception of Communion have never been estblished as an official “doctrine” that we must accept in order to remain Catholic…Yes, we must remain reverent however that may be. We are allowed to disagree with the Church on matters that are not contrary to the faith itself. I have to believe that God is One God, yet Three Persons (The Holy Trinity)…I am required to believe in the Real Presence etc. etc…but I am not required to believe that a certain ceremonial practice is better than another just because the Church says so…true, we are to follow it provided it doesn’t conflict morally for some unforseen reason, but we can still disagree and have our opinion.
 
For the past 4 years I’ve taught 1st Grade CCD. I’ve actually had my students SHOUTING — 'BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY" when referring to the sacred Host!

I’ve told them that if you learn*** NOTHING ELSE IN THIS CLASS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHIRST IN THE EUCHARIST!***

I have to admit that it wasn’t made that clear to me when I was growing up in Catholic school! I always “knew” it – but not really…

After I got back to the Church about 5 years ago, I read the book EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES by Joan Carroll Cruz…

nuf said…

Blessings,
Joanie
 
Are we a team or not.

If I understand the American Bishops, we are instructed to show reverence before the Body and Blood of Christ. Some do nothing but cross their hands. Some bow their heads, some bow at the waist, some genuflect. We are also instructed to receiving standing up. If someone insists on kneeling to receive the body of Christ, then the priest should oblige them but talk to them privately and encourage them to receive standing.

Hand or tongue it is up to us.

I think the moment when we receive is important, but I also think all the time at Mass prior to reception, when taken together, is more important. We need to prepare ourselves for the beauty that is the Eucharist from when we walk in the church doors. Through the Liturgy of the Word, through the Eucharistic Prayer, through the Lord’s Prayer etc. I also think that the time after we receive the Body and Blood of Christ is important.

The Sacred Liturgy celebrating Jesus’ sacrifice for us and our salvation is the closest we can possibly get to heaven here on Earth. The Lord is with us whether we receive on the tongue or in the hand.

Christ’s Peace
 
40.png
Primitive:
May I see this in writing? 🙂 :confused:

Someone knowledgable will hopefully correct me if I am wrong, but:…
The standards for the reception of reception of Communion have never been estblished as an official “doctrine” that we must accept in order to remain Catholic…Yes, we must remain reverent however that may be. We are allowed to disagree with the Church on matters that are not contrary to the faith itself. I have to believe that God is One God, yet Three Persons (The Holy Trinity)…I am required to believe in the Real Presence etc. etc…but I am not required to believe that a certain ceremonial practice is better than another just because the Church says so….true, we are to follow it provided it doesn’t conflict morally for some unforseen reason, but we can still disagree and have our opinion.
Click to expand...
That sorta thing is referred to as “cafeteria catholicism” – particularly by “traditionalists.”

In brief, follow the Church, not what you feel is “best.”
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
Correct me if I am wrong, which I am sure you will do, but:
  1. **Yes I am suggesting that Pope John Paul II ignored history when he gave permission to the American bishops to distribute communion in the hand. ** What started out as an illicit practice was granted legitimacy, but only in the United States. The norm elsewhere is on the tongue.
  2. I do follow what the Church directs. I can’t say all the bishops an priests in the U.S. do the same.
  3. You are correct that it is not my call, but it is my soul. I will follow the rules that were in effect for 1500 years**–I am positive those rules are not in error**.
Click to expand...
That’s nothing more than abject arrogance. You are placing your notion ahead of what the Church actually teaches.
 
40.png
GodBlessJoanie:
For the past 4 years I’ve taught 1st Grade CCD. I’ve actually had my students SHOUTING — 'BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY" when referring to the sacred Host!

I’ve told them that if you learn*** NOTHING ELSE IN THIS CLASS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHIRST IN THE EUCHARIST!***
Click to expand...
And shouting helps them to understand… how? I don’t get it.
 
lets not argue about whether we recieve communion stand/hand or kneel/tongue because it is both allowed by the HOLY SEE.

recieving in tongue may not be the tradition of the apostles but in time is passing and like Traditions it is improved over time, it is not changed but improved.

I recieve standing/ tongue because i am know that i am not worthy to touch with my hand the precious BODY of CHRIST. I am saying that i have committed a grave sin before i recieve communion but i know that i am not worthy to touch with my hands such precious Body of our Lord Jesus.

Genuflecting or profound bow and a clean heart and intention, and Faith is the essence of reverence in the communion. It is not the position or where to recieve which measures on how reverent we are.

FAITH and CLEAN MIND, HEART AND SOUL is the main point on what we must have before we recieve the Most Precious Body present in the Eucharist.

:amen:
 
40.png
Purificator:
That’s nothing more than abject arrogance. You are placing your notion ahead of what the Church actually teaches.
Click to expand...
You just don’t understand, “It’s hard to be humble when you’re a Sooner.” 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top