O
otjm
Guest
And I appreciate the expanded 3 year cycle and the coupling of the OT and Gospel readings.
Welcome to the Church!
Welcome to the Church!
Last edited:
- Status
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
There’s a great amount of evidence, yes. Juan Mateos S.J. (teacher and mentor to liturgical historian Fr. Robert Taft S.J.) wrote a fascinating book on the Liturgy of the Word. This book is now volume 1 of Fr. Taft’s encyclopedic history of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
If memory serves me correctly, some liturgical traditions had up to nine readings from the Old Testament before the Gospels were read.
If memory serves me correctly, some liturgical traditions had up to nine readings from the Old Testament before the Gospels were read.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I’ve personally had the Eucharist drop to the floor when I was receiving kneeling and on the tongue. It happens.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Twice was at a EF. Kneeling, paten, the whole nine yards. Both yes was because the priest and altar server moved to fast and didn’t place the host squarely on the tongue.
The third time was standing at the OF where the communicant did not open their mouth wide enough and tried to grab the host with their teeth.
The third time was standing at the OF where the communicant did not open their mouth wide enough and tried to grab the host with their teeth.
I would have to disagree, there are too many stories of hosts being found on the floor in the pews and in the pages of missals.
I personally watched a priest once follow a person who received in the hand and then walked off without placing it in their mouth and demand that he take it and place it in his mouth now.
What intentions that person had for the host had the priest not followed him, I have no idea.
If that person had went to an EMHC i’m not even sure they would have followed him and who only knows what his intentions was to do with the host.
Point being that communion in the hand definitely opens the door wide for abuses, whether we’re talking about accidental/careless abuses or more sinister abuses is a different discussion, nonetheless communion on the tongue only does not allow for such abuses.
As have I.
Edit: (the correct term is extraordinary minister, I wonder what circumstances make every Mass at most larger OF churches, so extraordinary as to need use of multiple extraordinary ministers?).
I 100% agree, I will say however, under certain circumstances I don’t mind receiving from a deacon, always on the tongue.
I cannot understand why every (OF) Mass feels the need for 4+ EMHC’s, I have been to large churches where there is no EMHC’s and it honestly doesn’t seem like it takes more than 5 minutes longer to receive.
I have waited extra time (at OF churches) at the back of line just to receive from a priest, what harm is there in waiting a few extra minutes?
Last edited:
This positively freaks out people under 40, but I stand where I stand.HomeschoolDad:
As have I.
Edit: (the correct term is extraordinary minister, I wonder what circumstances make every Mass at most larger OF churches, so extraordinary as to need use of multiple extraordinary ministers?).
Deacon is fine. I could even live with a monk or nun in habit, wouldn’t be crazy about it, but more acceptable than a layperson in mufti. I just say “from the priest” as part of that little aphorism I made up.HomeschoolDad:
I 100% agree, I will say however, under certain circumstances I don’t mind receiving from a deacon, always on the tongue.
C
CoffeeFanatic
Guest
I think that is a very good reason for everyone to receive on the tongue unless they have a good reason not to do so, which I can’t personally think of any.
Being Orthodox, we always receive via spoon as the bread is placed in the chalice with the wine. There is always someone on either side of the priest holding a cloth in case anything spills. We’re so worried about particles that we are given antidoron (blessed bread) immediately after communion. We are obsessive about not spilling antidoron particles too- and that isn’t the Eucharist. In some traditions, you also receive blessed wine after communing as well (something I’ve seen in a Bulgarian Orthodox parish).
I once watched a priest consume the Eucharist off of the floor after it spilled. It was humbling. He chastised us all to take more care of the literal body and blood of Christ after liturgy.
Being Orthodox, we always receive via spoon as the bread is placed in the chalice with the wine. There is always someone on either side of the priest holding a cloth in case anything spills. We’re so worried about particles that we are given antidoron (blessed bread) immediately after communion. We are obsessive about not spilling antidoron particles too- and that isn’t the Eucharist. In some traditions, you also receive blessed wine after communing as well (something I’ve seen in a Bulgarian Orthodox parish).
I once watched a priest consume the Eucharist off of the floor after it spilled. It was humbling. He chastised us all to take more care of the literal body and blood of Christ after liturgy.
Last edited:
Not all people under 40, as I am under 40.
(for clarification I was taught from childhood by my parents to only ever receive on the tongue, and I was brought up in the OF, until more recently my parents hadn’t attended a TLM since their youth)
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
I can’t believe people still have the stomach for round 4000 of this argument. Time is a flat circle.
Well spoken, but please realize that many faithful, orthodox Catholics maintain that the Church could never implement anything sacrilegious, and that Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit and cannot be challenged as deficient or defective. My thoughts are a bit more nuanced than that, but suffice it to say that I do everything in my power to give the Church the benefit of the doubt. I do this while embracing the full tradition of the Church and having a strong preference for the Traditional Latin Mass.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
This argument is always so painfully unproductive. Not because people come down on different sides of the question, but because of the absolute contempt some people feel for those who disagree with them.
I have absolutely zero beef with anyone who prefers COTT. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest. But i can’t stand the smug, self-congratulatory tone of some posters when this question comes up.
Like you, I just have no stomach to relitigate this. If it bothers someone that I receive communion in the hand, whatever. Be mad about it on the internet, I guess.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
Well this is why we are in a crisis. What constitutes the Church anymore? The hierarchy still has orthodox bishops left but many many many are filled with the error of modernism (and others besides) as is well documented over the course of decades. In places where Bishops conferences chose to adopt a heterodox interpretation of Amoris Laetitia (arguably using the plain sense of the written text) to permit communion to divorced and remarried Catholics (adultery), surely we can’t say the Church is responsible for that as a whole? If true, that would mean the Church deliberately taught error, at least in those countries whose bishops conferences adopted said error.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
To those advocates of communion in the hand I would just like to add this: For many traditional Catholics like myself, it’s not a matter of spiritual pride or preference. It is about protecting our Lord’s body from being profaned. I would not and do not judge anyone’s heart or intentions as I am not privy to anyone’s motivation regarding Communion. But even the most well intentioned communicant is responsible for profaning the Body by receiving in the hand (though I absolutely must point out that they are not “guilty” of sin in so doing as 1) most Catholics who receive this way don’t realize the gravity of what happens when they do so and 2) The modernists in Church hierarchy have made provision for this unfortunate and irreverent act making it more difficult for well intentioned Catholics to discern. But what objectively happens when anyone receives in the hand is that tiny particles of our Lord’s body end up falling to the floor and getting trampled by the line of communicants behind you. Particles can and do stick to people’s hands and are found in bathrooms, on door knobs, in parking lots, etc. This does not ever happen receiving Communion the way the Church commands, kneeling (if physically able to do so) and on the tongue, as patens are used so that any particles of our Lord’s precious body that fall will be contained on the paten and can be consumed by the priest at the end of distributing Communion so no part of our Lord is profaned.
TLDR, the way we receive communion DOES matter. Communion in the hand has objectively led to our Lord’s body being profaned as well as contributing directly to the loss of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
TLDR, the way we receive communion DOES matter. Communion in the hand has objectively led to our Lord’s body being profaned as well as contributing directly to the loss of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Last edited:
I know you know this, but many modern Catholics unwittingly practice a form of amnesia, and anything that is not believed, or done, the way things are believed and done right now, within the past few years, is just forgotten about. It’s not “modernism” per se, it is what I call “recentism” — meaning what we have right now, the Novus Ordo, the current Catechism, the New American Bible, the 20-decade rosary, CITH, EMHCs, everybody goes to communion, relatively few go to confession (some would say they go privately, or at biennial penance services), and so on — is the way it is, and that’s all you need to be thinking about.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Antiquarianism was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei. So @(name removed by moderator) is correct.
P
puer.dei
Guest
Just to be perfectly clear – you’re accusing the Church of teaching sacrilege?
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
Communion in the hand is not a “teaching”. It is a practice. An incorrect one. The Church can err and can change practices. The Roman Church used to ordain married men to the priesthood but changed to a celibate priesthood. This didn’t contradict any previous teaching as it was a matter of practice. Same with the reception of Holy Communion. It does not diminish the Church at all to say that those entrusted with guiding her committed a mistake (an especially grave one) when it comes to a non doctrinal/non teaching issue.
Easy solution — just go to the Traditional Latin Mass. Problem solved.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Just an FYI, the Roman Church still allows married men to be ordained. There is one in my diocese.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
True though these are exceptions to the rule and are only for protestant ministers coming into the faith (certain protestant ministers). But the Church used to permit married lay Catholic men to become priests. The Roman Church only allows protestant ministers whom are married to become Catholic priests (and again in rare circumstances). It doesn’t allow married laymen to become priests.
- Status