Taking the Host by hand, disturbing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why was kneeling turned into standing up to receive communion in the hand? Why did we go from a deep act of humility to something less humble and respectful? Was it because people abused it? Well, people abuse civil rights. Should that be repealed as a result? Most would say “No”. Or maybe, is it because people want to get on with their trivial pursuits like working unbnecessarily on Sunday, catching the big game or getting ready for the barbeque event at your house? Let’s go back to on the knees on the toungue please.
 
work(name removed by moderator)rogress:
Why was kneeling turned into standing up to receive communion in the hand? Why did we go from a deep act of humility to something less humble and respectful? Was it because people abused it? Well, people abuse civil rights. Should that be repealed as a result? Most would say “No”. Or maybe, is it because people want to get on with their trivial pursuits like working unbnecessarily on Sunday, catching the big game or getting ready for the barbeque event at your house? Let’s go back to on the knees on the toungue please.
For whatever reason the Bishops have made their decision. Perhaps it is because people today are living longer and not up to kneeling and genuflecting? Those who wish to kneel are able to stand–perhaps many of those who wish to kneel cannot, and therefore standing would accommodate most people–and they have expressed the desire for unity of posture.

SuZ
 
Seriously, how can people keep asserting that receiving on the tongue leads to increased reverence for our Lord? I assert that the largest contriibtor to reverence comes from instruction by priests and lay teachers within the church. If you are uneducated about the Eucharist, you won’t understand as well what is happening, and thus it is more difficult to have a high level of reverence. When you are educated as to what is taking place during the Eucharist, then you are more likely to have a high level of reverence.

How can anyone say that it is irreverant to touch the physical body of our Lord with our unconsecrated hands before we receive Him through the Eucharist? When He was on earth, how many times did Jesus walk amongst the lepers and the sick? How many dirty, unconsecrated hands touched Him as he walked through crowds that wanted nothing more than to touch Him and be healed?

I have absolutely no problem with people who prefer to receive on the tongue, but it bothers me to no end when it is asserted that someone who receives in the hand automatically has less reverence for our Lord. I do and will continue to receive in the hand 1) because I see no benefit to receiving on the tongue over receiving in the hand and 2) because the vast majority of parishioners at my parish receive in the hand, any by receiving in the hand I do my part to keep Christ’s body as one.

Peace
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
Every time I see this assertion, I am reminded of the old wives’ tale: Chewing gum takes seven years to pass through the human digestive system. :bigyikes: :rotfl:

tee
when you discuss foods, we can say it will last 15 mn or less or more i agree with that 100% BUT when we discussed
(BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST) (HOLY SACREMNET) (HOST) i will just say a phrase from the bible :
Blessed whom beleived in me without seeing me…
ps: excuse my english as i’m translating from my arabic bible to the english.
God Bless
JG
 
40.png
tulipelb:
when you discuss foods, we can say it will last 15 mn or less or more i agree with that 100% BUT when we discussed
(BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST) (HOLY SACREMNET) (HOST) i will just say a phrase from the bible :
Blessed whom beleived in me without seeing me…
ps: excuse my english as i’m translating from my arabic bible to the english.
God Bless
JG
(Your English is very good, though I suspect we may each still be missing some subtleties – I’m sure I know not why you chose to quote that verse)
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
John 6:55​
I think the physical, consecrated HOST qualifies as food.

If you are speaking of something else – Say a spiritual, sacramental presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ – You will have to be more clear (and I suspect that I shall have to continue to disagree that He is limited by the clock).

tee
 
40.png
Exporter:
For all my early life the Host was placed on the tongue by the Priest.

For a few years now I have seen people extend their hands and they take the Host in their hands. Then they put it in the mouth.

Why is this revolting to me? Who started this? How did this practice get spread? I do not remember the Priest one day telling us it was an option. Is it done in Rome? :rolleyes:
Where I come from (Detroit) this practice began very early, 1965 while I was still in school. Our Cardinal Dearden, who had gone to V2 as one of the more conservative, orthodox voices, for some reason emerged as one of the most vociferous proponents of radical changes in liturgical practice. He must have gotten a committee assignment or something (he was also big on the change in Church music which is a whole other topic)

We come in one week, the altar was turned around, 1/3 of the pew gone, the rest re-arranged, the language was English, the communion rail was gone, and intructions for receiving communion in the hand were given. All of this with minimal catechesis and explanation. I remember quite clearly my mother, a convert, saying that this must be what Catholics in England experienced during the time of the Reformation, and predicting how much pain, confusion and denial of the Eucharist all of this would cause. My mother the prophet.

My point: where were all you fine people who have been participating in this discussion 40 years ago? Same with the Latin Mass proponents, church music protectionists, liturgical dance police and others. Where were you when all this started, because we looked for explanations and protests at the time, but did not hear them.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
My point: where were all you fine people who have been participating in this discussion 40 years ago? Same with the Latin Mass proponents, church music protectionists, liturgical dance police and others. Where were you when all this started, because we looked for explanations and protests at the time, but did not hear them.
I was a Baptist forty years ago.
 

40.png
puzzleannie:
My point: where were all you fine people who have been participating in this discussion 40 years ago? Same with the Latin Mass proponents, church music protectionists, liturgical dance police and others. Where were you when all this started, because we looked for explanations and protests at the time, but did not hear them.**

I, too, was Baptist…and I was two years old.
 
My point: where were all you fine people who have been participating in this discussion 40 years ago? Same with the Latin Mass proponents, church music protectionists, liturgical dance police and others. Where were you when all this started, because we looked for explanations and protests at the time, but did not hear them.

Dearest Annie

I was only a teenager when the statues in church were painted white, the beautiful altar rails taken away and people didn’t kneel any longer to receive our Lord. I can remember women wearing the veils on their heads and afternoon Benediction, which no longer happens. Adoration was the norm and this only happens once a month now.

I was at art school at the time and as pure co-incidence painted the altar rails and photographed them and other interior parts of the church before it was white-washed and chopped up… prior to their removal, at least I have these to remember.

We have gone mad on the love of God and forgotten that God is also to be honoured and glorified in reverence and love. To be honest though people understand the Mass in English and to some extent I agree with this, though I do not like the stripping away of reverence. It is presumptious of our standing with God, in short it is rather too bold. People as a result see the Mass as more about fellowship than glory and thanksgiving to God.

I never take the host by the hand and I never receive from a lay person, in my opnion neither is appropriate nor reverent.

It makes me have a sad heart.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
man you people make me feel old. I was in 7th grade when the council convened and in 10th grade when it ended. so my question is, are these matters a done deal? is there a way back to sanity? I guess my gripe is with those who left the Church about that time (maybe because of the changes, who knows) and came back after 40 years amazed at all these changes, but they have not had the advantage (or suffered through) the roller coaster of change, abuse, innovation, the good with the bad, yet expect everything to look and sound the way it did they day they left.

What is the good of grousing about it on these forums? Are those who protest the actions and decisions of the leadership of the Church any better or more righteous when the topic is liturgical reform than they are when the topic is women priests, celibacy or birth control?
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
What is the good of grousing about it on these forums? Are those who protest the actions and decisions of the leadership of the Church any better or more righteous when the topic is liturgical reform than they are when the topic is women priests, celibacy or birth control?
You are absolutely correct. If you disagree with a norm, write to where it will do some good. Write to your Pastor, Bishop & Rome. And make a signature page and get others to sign.

SuZ
 
40.png
ByzCath:
This is utter nonsense.

To say this is to be ignorate of history.

The practice of Communion in Hand is something that was done in the early Church.
It certainly was. Those who say it is bad, must think the Early Church was full of Apostates. Sure seems people want to be their own Pope and their own Bishop now days.

As both are allowed, neither should be contended as better than the other. Take it on the tongue or in the hand. That is all you need to know and make your choice.
 
I do receive Communion in the hand unless I have a small grandchild in my arms. However, I only receive from a priest. I think the rules that EM’s are to be used if there are not enough priests is a good one. We have 3 priests and 2 deacons and for some reason only 1 priest is there at Communion. When they took away the rail, I started to bow before Him. Now it is in the GIRM and everyone does it. We have a very good church. We have 24/7 Eucharistic exposition, Stations on the 1st Friday of each month and a lot of revernece in our church. All our Masses are packed and we have 5 on Sunday.

It makes me proud to be a Catholic.
 
Below is a homily given by a very holy priest, Fr. Robert Altier who serves at arguably the most faithful parish in the Archdiocese of St. Paul/ Minneapolis, MN. Fr. Altier is also a regular guest on Drew Mariani’s afternoon drivetime radio show on Catholic Radio (Relevant Radio network). His homily was instrumental in my reversion to receiving my Lord on the tongue. More of Fr. Altier’s homilies can be found in audio or text at www.desertvoice.org.

Homily by Fr. Robert Altier, Assoc. Pastor at St. Agnes Catholic Church in St. Paul, MN

Communion on the tongue

Monday September 10, 2001 Twenty-third Week in Ordinary Time

Reading (Colossians 1:24-2:3) Gospel (St. Luke 6:6-11)

In the first reading today Saint Paul, in his Letter to the Colossians, talks about how, in Christ, is hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This is because He is almighty God; He is the Creator of the universe; He is the Savior of the world; He is God, absolute and perfect. Saint Paul says at the beginning of the reading that he makes up in his flesh for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ, for the sake of Christ’s body, the Church.

In Christ, now, there is no suffering, but only in the Mystical Body. But there is one place, which I would like to address this morning, where I believe that Our Lord is truly grieved. I want to challenge you in that area: That is, the manner by which we receive Holy Communion. The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand.

Let me explain a little as to why. First of all, to receive is something that is passive. The priest takes Holy Communion because the priest is the one who offers the Victim in sacrifice. Therefore, the one who offers the Victim must also take part in that Victim. But the people of God are to receive Holy Communion. To take the Host from your hand and put It into your own mouth is to take Communion, not to receive Communion; and so it is an active thing, not a passive thing. The Lord desires to give Himself to you as a gift, not to be taken by you. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the symbolism of what is happening in the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, if you will notice, during Mass after the Consecration, my fingers remain together because of the particles of the Host that are there. When we take Holy Communion in the hand, there are particles of Our Lord that are on our hands and on our fingers. That is why, after Communion, the priest will purify his fingers - because of the particles of the Host. But how often the people of God, after receiving Holy Communion, simply brush the particles onto the ground and walk on Our Lord. Or they put their hands in their pockets, and Our Lord is right there on their clothing. The abuses that this opens them up to are very grave. Not that anyone is intentionally doing that, but I think it is something that we need to consider exceedingly carefully.

What I always tell people is that you can look forward to the Day of Judgment and ask yourself how you intend to approach Our Lord, because He is your Judge. The same Lord you approach in Holy Communion is the same One you will approach on the Day of Judgment. Do you assume that you will put your hand out to Our Blessed Lord on the Day of Judgment? Is your view of judgment that you will shake Our Lord’s hand and tell Him how wonderful it is to see Him? Or is your view that you will do great reverence to Our Blessed Lord? My view is that I will be flat on my face - not shaking His hand…

The rest of his homily (too long to reprint it all here), can be found at A Voice in the Desert - Highlights of - Father Robert Altier and go down under heading The Eucharist to the homily of 9/10/01.
 
Fr. Robert Altier, Assoc. Pastor. Period! He is not a Bishop, nor a Cardinal, nor the Pope. He is a priest who is ultra Conservative but no authority. It gets quite tiresome to have all these so called experts drug out to prove Holy Mother Church wrong. While I don’t doubt he is a fine priest, he is NOT the first, nor the last say in the matter. Anything he espouses is his opinion only. The Bishops still make the decisions, not the priests.

That is why we are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church. We have Leaders. An Associate pastor is a shepherd who is suppose to follow His Leader, the Bishop. While I have no clue what the dioceses is like he serves in, he still should shut up and teach what the church teaches.

Rebellion has never been a part of faithfulness. We have those on the left and those on the right who all fall short of Christ commands.
 
Almost everyone recieves in the hand at my church . So the other day, i thought," I’m ganna recieve it on the tounge". So i go up, opened my mouth, and the decon looks at me, kinda like this :ehh:. He put it in my mouth, but i think he was surprised to see me do it.
 
Gunner,
Anyone can say whatever they want, but since there is an option, people have the right to choose. There are so many wrong choices made when there is no option, why worry about something approved by the Church?

The Holy Spirit was there when the Church made these changes, just as He was for the Council of Trent.

SuZ
 
40.png
Marie:
Fr. Robert Altier, Assoc. Pastor. Period! He is He is a priest
While I have no clue what the dioceses is like he serves in, he still should shut up and teach what the church teaches.

how do you dare to say for a priest to shut up???
u are making a big insult towards Jesus because all priests represent Jesus on earth! how could you say this ??? and you are saying that you are following the church teaching, of course the church never ever said that we can insult our priests???
Go and check the divine mercy (st.faustine) what jesus declare to her regarding the priests, she was attending a mass and when the consacred moment arrived for the host the priest disappered and jesus appeared on behalf of him to continue the mass , so st. faustine asked jesus were the priest go?
Jesus siad to her: HE IS INSIDE MY HEART !!!
JG


Rebellion has never been a part of faithfulness. We have those on the left and those on the right who all fall short of Christ commands.
and you are which side???
JG
 
40.png
Marie:
Fr. Robert Altier, Assoc. Pastor. Period! He is not a Bishop, nor a Cardinal, nor the Pope. He is a priest who is ultra Conservative but no authority. It gets quite tiresome to have all these so called experts drug out to prove Holy Mother Church wrong. While I don’t doubt he is a fine priest, he is NOT the first, nor the last say in the matter. Anything he espouses is his opinion only. The Bishops still make the decisions, not the priests.

That is why we are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church. We have Leaders. An Associate pastor is a shepherd who is suppose to follow His Leader, the Bishop. While I have no clue what the dioceses is like he serves in, he still should shut up and teach what the church teaches.

Rebellion has never been a part of faithfulness. We have those on the left and those on the right who all fall short of Christ commands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top