Solving the decline in belief of the Real Presence.

[malcolm_davies]

I recently gave a 2 part teaching to a lay community I belong to(Disciples of Jesus) on the Eucharist.

My notes were were entirely a copy of what is in the catechism of the church.

For many people this is the first adult teaching they have ever received on the Eucharist aand many of the questions were pretty basic - being on this forum I have sen these questions and the correct answers before.

A central part of the teaching was on the real presence.

If the local priests won’t teach then this is one alternative.

My next teaching will be on the incarnation, death & resurrection (straight from the catechism again).

 

[rcn]

viktor aleksndr:

i know that i am not worthy to touch with my hands such precious Body of our Lord Jesus.

This has been argued over and over and over. You are wrong. Or, what you claim to “know” is not what the Church teaches.

You are certainly free to receive on the tongue if you prefer, but come up with a better reason than “my hands are not worthy” because that is doctrinally incorrect at the present time, plain and simple.

 

[rcn]

Has anyone suggested yet that the premise of this thread is simply baseless? That there is in fact no “decline in belief of the Real Presence”?

I hope no one is using that “only 30% believe survey”, because it’s been thoroughly debunked by Catholic Answers, way back in 1999 !
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp

 

[TeriGator]

This info comes from EWTN’s Q&A website:

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002.
The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

As far as I can see, if one feels that one is unworthy to receive the Body of our Lord in one’s hand, then one is allowed to receive on the tongue. I’d like to see some evidence that Church doctrine, not the musings of individual theologians, contradicts this opinion.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

rcn:

This has been argued over and over and over. You are wrong. Or, what you claim to “know” is not what the Church teaches.

You are certainly free to receive on the tongue if you prefer, but come up with a better reason than “my hands are not worthy” because that is doctrinally incorrect at the present time, plain and simple.

what i know to myself is known only by me and GOD. You dont know about myself nor even the Pope. If is say i am unworthy it is me who speak that i am unworthy and im not speaking in behalf of the Catholic Doctrine. Only GOD can say or judge if i am worthy or unworthy for Him. :tsktsk:

Peace!

 

[grotto]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_3.gifMan oh man! I can hardly take all these individual expressions of opinion! First off, take the stubborn, prideful attitude out; be GENTLE! When we think about the early church, the middle church, the church of today, it is something we learn. The one constant is Our Lord Who gave Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist - we learn this by being TAUGHT to believe. If someone has presented the idea that the people who first came to believe stood up and received the Holy Eucharist in their hand or reclined on a couch it was their way at the time to practice their FAITH. Its common sense that deepening knowledge applied to the faithful would grow and the Church that Our Lord began with St. Peter as the head of the church would guide us always; its not just common sense, Our Lord declared it! The descriptions of two centuries worth of history is bound to show the faltering of belief and the subsequent growth - we did learn from the “git-go” about the Evil One and his goal to destroy - destroy - destroy. His greatest tool is our capacity for pride and power. When a person “learns” its because they have been told, shown, tried and practice. For instance, in this posting when I refer to Our Lord God, He Himself, Jesus Christ, in The Blessed Trinity with God Our Father and The Holy Spirit you will notice that I capitalized the beginning letter in each instance of referance. That is a sign, a show, a teaching of reverance for all things associated with God. Early church people did not express this - it grew from knowledge of our Faith. So people march along, growing and faltering; confused, lost, found and guided. The ways that we teach, show, learn have led us to value the actions we perform when we participate in our Catholic Faith. Reverance is an action we take from being taught, shown, learned and practiced. When reverant actions are subdued, disregarded, thought of as “showing off”, being a better believer, etc., who do you think is using his tools? Right! The closer we draw to Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Presence of the Holy Eucharist, the more we will wish to express actions of holy reverance to Him. Without “showing off” we show another how Divine the True Presence Is that He should come to us, an UNWORTHY sinner who has repented through the Sacrament of Confession. Our soul must not be tainted with a grave or serious sin when we approach to receive Our Lord. I hope whoever reads this that I intend to encourage each one to personally practice reverance always - trust me, a casual approach is not the desired way to be - we are commanded by the First Commandment to offer to God alone the supreme worship that is due Him, adoring Him, and praying to Him.Thanks for your thought!

 

[Purificator]

what i know to myself is known only by me and GOD. You dont know about myself nor even the Pope. If is say i am unworthy it is me who speak that i am unworthy and im not speaking in behalf of the Catholic Doctrine. Only GOD can say or judge if i am worthy or unworthy for Him. :tsktsk:

Peace!

The smacks strongly of a Protestant way of thinking! You discount what the Church actually instructs in favor of “what i know to myself is known only by me and GOD.” What’s the Church? Chopped liver?

 

[Purificator]

This info comes from EWTN’s Q&A website:

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002. The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

 

[rcn]

viktor aleksndr:

what i know to myself is known only by me and GOD.

You are expected to “know” what the Church teaches. The only reason that you know anything about God, is because it has been revealed through his Church.

Only GOD can say or judge if i am worthy or unworthy for Him. :tsktsk:

You know what you can do with your “wagging finger”, don’t you?

The Church is God’s representative on earth. If the Church says that in the US and other regions, we may receive in the hand… and yet you still insist that your hands are unworthy, you are contradicting the Church, and setting a bad example for others by your statement.

You are free to receive on the tongue, but you must not profess the “unworthiness of your hands”, because the Church has told you that this is not so.

 

[amasimp]

Purificator:

Because the Church allows it and because some people prefer to follow what was done in the early Church.

The early Church used to celebrate Mass in eachother’s homes…does that mean that we should head over to the Jones’ ever Sunday?

The early Church also used to celebrate Mass in catacombs surrounded by dead people…does that mean that we should now go to the local mortuary for Mass?

At some point, there needs to be an examination of why early church practices were ended. In most cases, it was in response to a heresy that developed surrounding the belief in the Real Presence. Since a return to our “early Church” practices we are seeing those heresies pop up again.

The early Church was wise in abandoning practices that eroded belief in the Real Presence. Maybe it is now time to really follow their example.

 

[Purificator]

amasimp:

The early Church used to celebrate Mass in eachother’s homes…does that mean that we should head over to the Jones’ ever Sunday?

The early Church also used to celebrate Mass in catacombs surrounded by dead people…does that mean that we should now go to the local mortuary for Mass?

At some point, there needs to be an examination of why early church practices were ended. In most cases, it was in response to a heresy that developed surrounding the belief in the Real Presence. Since a return to our “early Church” practices we are seeing those heresies pop up again.

The early Church was wise in abandoning practices that eroded belief in the Real Presence. Maybe it is now time to really follow their example.

Nope. This examination needs to be continuous and on-going. Thankfully it’s the task of the Church, not individuals like yourself.

 

[Primitive]

Purificator:

That sorta thing is referred to as “cafeteria catholicism” – particularly by “traditionalists.”

In brief, follow the Church, not what you feel is “best.”

Yes I know what “cafateria Catholicism” is. I do not believe it is any good, however I still have the option to disagree. This is not necessarily picking and choosing unless I act upon it.
For example, there are many things that I do not like at work. My boss tell me to do something, and I disagree with him by saying “Sir, I don’t agree this is the best way to do this, there is a much easier/more efficient way, however, you’re in charge and I will do as you say”…
Hopefully that makes more sense or explains better.

Also, I was wanting to know if you had in writing, a statement from the church explaining why Hand Communion is to be accepted or exercised.

And thank you for your discussions

 

[Genesis315]

Primitive:

Also, I was wanting to know if you had in writing, a statement from the church explaining why Hand Communion is to be accepted or exercised.

And thank you for your discussions

Yes, I would like to see some explanation too. I attend the Latin Mass, but I can understand the reasoning behind Mass in the vernacular and why it can be seen as beneficial. I just want to know what the reasoning is behind communion in the hand and why it is beneficial.

 

[PiusXIII]

I think a big part of it has to do with poor religious ed training. I know many relatives in their 20s and 30s who were NEVER told at the time of their first communion that they were receiving the body and blood of Christ. One seemed shocked when a few years ago it was mentioned to him about Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

He said, “We don’t believe that—we believe that it’s bread and wine.”

Disheartening to say the least.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

We should make eucharistic adoration more frequent and educate ourselves (from the pulpit, how about a real sermon once and a while?!) on the importance of this sacrement. We also should return to the days of receving the most precious body on our tounges kneeling, for it shows best the seriousness of the sacrement. It also minimizes chance for abuse, desecration of holy body, walking away with it, dropping it ect.

 

[JimG]

Everything that Annie said in her post resonantes with me.

I grew up in a time when we received kneeling at the communion rail, and no one but a priest was allowed to touch the sacred species (or even the chalice or ciborium, for that matter.)

In my childhood it was customary, after receiving holy communion at the altar rail, to come back to the pew, kneel down, and bury your head in your hands for some minutes of silent adoration.

I was in my current parish when the change allowing communion in the hand was made. There were three consecutive Sunday homilies given over to preparation, and then the change. Although it was optional, the feeling was nearly universal that “this is the way it is to be done now.” So nearly everyone switched to receiving in the hand.

While my belief in the real presence is as strong as ever, the experience has subtly changed. No longer do we spend time in adoration after receiving. No longer am I so conscious of the reality of Christ who is coming to me in this Sacrament.

I’m not asking that we return to the old method. I’m just saying that the we probably did lose something in the transition, that we have not yet regained.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

amasimp:

The early Church was wise in abandoning practices that eroded belief in the Real Presence. Maybe it is now time to really follow their example.

There are those on this site who would use this argument to deny the Chalice to the laity. I would hate to see that. Yes, I know we rec. Both under one Species, but Our Lord extended gave us Both Species and HHJPII said that the fullness of the symbolism of Communion, not the Real Presence, but the symbolism, was in Both (the Real Presence is also in both, so I hope I’m clear). I still think the current system is fine, allowing each communicant to decide, either the tongue or the hand. Someone mentioned that hand reception only happened in this country. Not true. We only have to look at recordings of the recent papal liturgies to see that it is not so. I’ve seen HHJPII give the Host to people in the hand and on the tongue.

 

[Purificator]

Primitive:

Yes I know what “cafateria Catholicism” is. I do not believe it is any good, however I still have the option to disagree. This is not necessarily picking and choosing unless I act upon it.
For example, there are many things that I do not like at work. My boss tell me to do something, and I disagree with him by saying “Sir, I don’t agree this is the best way to do this, there is a much easier/more efficient way, however, you’re in charge and I will do as you say”…
Hopefully that makes more sense or explains better.

Also, I was wanting to know if you had in writing, a statement from the church explaining why Hand Communion is to be accepted or exercised.

And thank you for your discussions

Paragraph 161 of GIRM reads as follows:

“If Communion is given only under the form of bread, the priest raises the Eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: The body of Christ. The communicants reply: Amen, and receive the Sacrament as they choose, either on the tongue, or in the hands, where this is allowed. As soon as the communicant receives the sacred host it is consumed in its entirety. If Communion is given under both kinds, the rite described in nos. 284-287 is followed.”

 

[otm]

Again, historically you are mistaken. This isn’t new stuff, just stuff not seen by this generation. It is actually the most ancient practice.

---

Please do not mistake me, I think it is critical that we reinforce this greatest teaching of the Church, that Our Lord is entirely present in the Sacred Species, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and in such a way that it is the merest accident that those Sacred Species retain the appearance of bread and wine (that’s why we call them “accidentals”). But as a teacher, I find it frustrating when we don’t get to the heart of an issue. I do not believe communion in the hand and the absence of altar rails is what has lead to this sad state of affairs. It’s near heretical priests and nuns (and yes, that’s part of the “Spirit of Vatican II”), and possibly parents who either don’t know the truth of the Faith themselves or who know it, but aren’t teaching their children with diligence for whatever reason.

Most of which didn’t start with Vatican 2, but with Humanae Vitae, and the explosion of dissent that followed - from theologians, priests and bishops. That was followed by the attitutde that if the Church was wrong about birth control (which they were sure of), then it might be wrong about other things.

In the stew that was being made, catechists got the idea that we had “too much” doctrinal content; that the early church had nowhere near as much doctrine (on that they were right), and that we needed to learn to love Jesus and one another in the simple fashion of the earliest Christians. Catechesis got dumbed down - below the lowest common denominator, in my humble opinion - and we are now two generations with little or no teaching about what the Church really believes.

Communion in the hand, standing as opposed to kneeling, has nothing to do with it. My parish has a permanent deacon, another in training, 2 priests, a seminarian, and three women who have joined orders. And we have Communion in the hand, standing.

We also have 24 hour Adoration… 363 days a year.

 

[otm]

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?

It brings more fully the symbol of “Take, eat…”. The Mass is both a sacrifice and a sacred meal. Prior to the changes, we had lost sight of the aspect of the sacred meal in large part. It is why also we are given the cup.