Tongue or Hand?

[kleary]

And this is where one can appeal to tradition WITHOUT being guilty of antiquarianism, since one isn’t saying that we HAVE to do what the early Church did: it’s a very poor and illogical historical/traditional argument to say that He only meant the Apostles as Bishops if we then invoke the Apostolic Fathers and Patristic Fathers in our apologetics for our faith (which we constantly do). Why? Because reception in the hand by the laity WAS practiced in the Apostolic and Patristic Church, by the disciples of those Apostles. The argument that only the Apostles could receive by hand seems to have been refuted by Apostolic/Patristic practice. Again, I’m not saying we HAVE to have Communion in the hand because the ancient Church had it. I’m saying that since the Apostolic Church had it, it must have been an Apostolic practice. That’s not “liberal,” that’s simply history and logic.

I was making the comparison between the differences between the ordained Bishops and the lay people here. The liberals use Jesus saying “Take and Eat” to push Communion in the Hand as if Jesus direction here is for lay people to take with their hands the Sacred Host.

A small retort to say “Hey… he said that to his Bishops” was simply to make the difference. I know that Communion in the hand was prevalent in the Church at the time of the Apostles. They did not have neatly cut round pieces of bread that we do today.

However the Holy Spirit guided the Church in her understanding of the Eucharist and the “on the tongue” meathod became the norm with Communion in the hand being shut down.

The FACT that it resurfaced in the Middle Ages as a practice meant to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood… and started as an abuse in disobedience of the Holy See back in the 1960’s should be enough for anyone to see.

 

[thechrismyster]

*how did the apostles receive at the last supper?*Is Jesus speaking here to the lay people or to His Bishops?

if that floats your boat, go with it by all means, but are the bishops of today who are allowing Communion in the hand wrong? where did the error happen if so along the way? are you the communion morality referee?

 

[kleary]

It simply shows that one is employing the liberty granted by the Church. Let me re-post this for you and you can take it apart logically: "just because Protestants receive in the hand for heretical reasons doesn’t mean that Catholics cannot receive in the hand for non-heretical reasons. The action of receiving Holy Communion in the hand is, of itself, morally neutral. It can be vested with heretical intent or it can be vested with perfectly orthodox intent. And restricting reception to the tongue cannot definitively rule out heresy on the part of the recepient…or the priest for that matter."

And as Gottle pointed out:

**"ISTM that the argument against communion in the hand because of its “Protestant meaning”, is in essence an argument that the abuse of a thing takes away right use of it. But why should it ? **

Besides, how many Catholics even know anything about Protestant Eucharistic theology or practice ? It can’t simply be assumed that communion in the hand among Catholics has the same meaning for Catholics, as it does or did or might have for this or that group of Protestants: yet it is commoly assumed to have it; with what justification, is not clear."

You haven’t replied to either.

This does not matter. We are talking about the Liturgy laid down by the Church that MUST show Catholic Teaching in EVERY SINGLE ACTION. It’s called Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi. If kneeling and on the tongue is meant to show the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, and standing and in the hand is meant by Protestants to show heresy…it is a bad decision to adopt such practice especially in this day and age where 90 percent of Catholics DO NOT believe in Transubstantiation.

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I was making the comparison between the differences between the ordained Bishops and the lay people here. The liberals use Jesus saying “Take and Eat” to push Communion in the Hand as if Jesus direction here is for lay people to take with their hands the Sacred Host. **I don’t ever hear liberals doing that. They seem more concerned with pushing a woman’s “right” to choose and the “rights” of women to be ordained, gays, etc. I’ve never heard one “push” communion in the hand. **

A small retort to say “Hey… he said that to his Bishops” was simply to make the difference. I know that Communion in the hand was prevalent in the Church at the time of the Apostles. They did not have neatly cut round pieces of bread that we do today.

However the Holy Spirit guided the Church in her understanding of the Eucharist and the “on the tongue” meathod became the norm with Communion in the hand being shut down. **Of course, the Holy Spirit guides the Church, but I certainly hope you aren’t implying that the Holy Spirit specifically guided the Church to one method of reception and away from the other. That would mean that the Church has permitted a discipline that is contrary to the Will of the Holy Trinity (the Apostles united with Peter could NOT have imposed a discipline that was contrary to that Will. Remember, the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who said that the faithful could be lead into impiety by any liturgical practice put forth or proposed by the Church. There is a “negative” infallibility attached to any discipline proposed by the Church: it simply cannot lead the faithful into error. It’s not like an infallible, dogmatic truth (like the Holy Trinity, or the Hypostatic Union, etc.), it’s merely protected by the fact that the Church is, in and of Herself, indefectible. So the same Holy Spirit is protecting this discipline by virtue of insuring the indefectibility of the Church and ALL Her disciplines. **

The FACT that it resurfaced in the Middle Ages as a practice meant to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood… and started as an abuse in disobedience of the Holy See back in the 1960’s should be enough for anyone to see.

The fact that it is permitted by the indefectable Bride of Christ as a liturgical discipline and practice should be enough for anyone to see that there’s nothing heretical about it, regardless of the fact that Protestants (who in the Reformation were notorious for wanting to go “back” to the early Church, so that also probably plays a role in WHY they wanted Communion in the hand) do it as well (just as they baptize by immersion, which we may do, just as they receive communion in both species, as we may do, etc., because they got it all from US. We ARE the early Church, continued in an unbroken line).

 

[MaryAgnes]

I would guess that due to the recent number of posts concerning receiving on the tongue versus in the hand the post is designed to lure the unsuspecting and unknowing into a spirited debate on that subject . Then she would spring the trap by “proving” that reception in the hand was the norm in the early church by pointing out that her quotation is by St Cyril of Jerusalem, dating from about 350AD. This particular quote is often used for that purpose…

The description he is giving is for reception of Holy Communion at HIS church, Jerusalem, not for any other.

Whoa, Palmas! That assessment is quite a leap on your part. Very judgmental as well.

The truth is, I posted the quote from Cyril as a new thread. I was hoping for some comments and (name removed by moderator)ut on it. How it got moved to this thread is beyond me–but this is NOT where I posted it.

I’m offended that you would jump to such a conclusion and even suggest that it was posted as entrapment of some sort.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This does not matter. We are talking about the Liturgy laid down by the Church that MUST show Catholic Teaching in EVERY SINGLE ACTION. It’s called Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi. If kneeling and on the tongue is meant to show the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, and standing and in the hand is meant by Protestants to show heresy…it is a bad decision to adopt such practice especially in this day and age where 90 percent of Catholics DO NOT believe in Transubstantiation.

Ken

Where do you get the figure of 90%? I have to assume that you are exaggerating. Lex Orendi-Lex Credendi does NOT preclude reception in the hand, provided the basic assumption that the communicant comes to receive with the proper reverence, belief, and disposition of soul, the benefit of the doubt that the Church gives to all except the most scandalous, reprobate, and public sinners who approach the Blessed Sacrament. If reception in the hand denotes a denial of the Real Presence, then why do most of those who receive in the hand either genuflect or bow before receiving? This is not a logical argument. You have very visceral feelings about this, and that’s fine, you’re entitled to feel that way (see comment of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta above), you simply aren’t at liberty to claim that reception in the hand is a manifest sign of heresy on the part of the Church, who permits it, or the recipient who avails himself of this method. I firmly believe that the Sacred Species do not merely contain Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, but in point of fact ARE Him in His Fullness, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. And I receive in the hand. I don’t personally hang out with Catholics who don’t share that belief and they all receive in the hand. What I’m saying is that your assertion is not true either theologically nor pragmatically.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Whoa, Palmas! That assessment is quite a leap on your part. Very judgmental as well.

The truth is, I posted the quote from Cyril as a new thread. I was hoping for some comments and (name removed by moderator)ut on it. How it got moved to this thread is beyond me–but this is NOT where I posted it.

I’m offended that you would jump to such a conclusion and even suggest that it was posted as entrapment of some sort.

In all fairness to palmas, how would he know that you posted it as a new thread? I found it a little out of place as well. Maybe the mods should have put a moved notice on it.

 

[LilyM]

This does not matter. We are talking about the Liturgy laid down by the Church that MUST show Catholic Teaching in EVERY SINGLE ACTION. It’s called Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi. If kneeling and on the tongue is meant to show the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, and standing and in the hand is meant by Protestants to show heresy…it is a bad decision to adopt such practice especially in this day and age where 90 percent of Catholics DO NOT believe in Transubstantiation.

Ken

kleary, this is one of the more illogical things I’ve heard. Plenty of Episcopalian clerics wear most if not all of the same vestments that Catholic clerics do. They do this, doubtless, to manifest their belief that their clerical orders are just as valid as the Catholic orders. To all faithful Catholics that idea is heresy

Does the fact that they do so for this reason mean our clerics should then stop wearing them? It would seem so by your reasoning.

 

[CatholicNick]

Some of us think we’re “more Catholic than the Pope.”

While i do not think along the lines that i am ‘more Catholic than the Pope’. There is a very good article/blog entry about this. The author has, at the top of his blog ‘Where we are more Catholic than the Pope’ (really intending to be funny/satirical) - and this blog entry tells you why he says this.

athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-my-blog-says-where-we-are-more.html

(He is not sedevacantist or SSPX, and is loyal to Rome from what i have read)

 

[palmas85]

Whoa, Palmas! That assessment is quite a leap on your part. Very judgmental as well.

The truth is, I posted the quote from Cyril as a new thread. I was hoping for some comments and (name removed by moderator)ut on it. How it got moved to this thread is beyond me–but this is NOT where I posted it.

I’m offended that you would jump to such a conclusion and even suggest that it was posted as entrapment of some sort.

Sure looked like one. Let me explain. You post a quote, don’t say who or where it is from and invite comments. You tell me what it looks like? I’ve seen many such posts here all hoping to stir controversy.

Being called judgemental or even , horrors uncharitable doesn’t bother me as it does some of the more politically correct here,

Incidentally, I initially saw the post as a new thread as well. There were two others who had also posted who didn’t know what you were looking for by the manner in which you posted. I merely gave my opinion based on what it looked like.

 

[Michael_Welter]

What Catholic Teaching does Communion in the hand show us? Remember now that Protestants use the practice to show their denial of belief in the Real Presence and denial of the Catholic Ministerial Priesthood.

The Church teaches that communion in the hand is allowed.

And it doesn’t matter why the protestants do it. Catholics were receiving communion in the hand long before there were protestants.

 

[MaryAgnes]

Sure looked like one. Let me explain. You post a quote, don’t say who or where it is from and invite comments. You tell me what it looks like? I’ve seen many such posts here all hoping to stir controversy.

Being called judgemental or even , horrors uncharitable doesn’t bother me as it does some of the more politically correct here,

Incidentally, I initially saw the post as a new thread as well. There were two others who had also posted who didn’t know what you were looking for by the manner in which you posted. I merely gave my opinion based on what it looked like.

I forgive you. :getholy:

 

[TradyDaddy]

What I find astounding when reading through the arguments by liberals and modernists is this: When someone dares to question the liberal irreverant practices that have been accepted by the church in the past few decades, they are attacked by the “openminded” progressivists for not following the Pope…absolutely laughable! Somehow they seem to forget that these new disciplines (or lack of) have come about because enough dissodent Presbyters, Bishops and laity thumbed their noses at the Pope long enough to get the Vatican to bow to their demands for communion in the hand, lay ministers, girl servers, etc, etc.

On top of this, when the Pope issues statements against the “abuses” in the liturgy (ie Redemptionis Sacramentum), these same arch-defenders of “current church teachings” have no desire to drop practices that were NEVER approved to begin with (ie glass pitchers and cups for the precious blood). Now thier attack against the orthodox minded Catholic is that we are stubborn and closed minded.

 

[lak611]

The Church teaches that communion in the hand is allowed.

And it doesn’t matter why the protestants do it. Catholics were receiving communion in the hand long before there were protestants.

We should not concern ourselves with Protestant practices. After all, we, as Catholics, have the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Protestants simply have a symbol. Whatever our Holy Father allows is all that matters. As St. Peter’s successor in Christ’s true Church, he has the final say. If he allows us to do or not to do something that Protestants also happen to do should not matter. We have true Sacraments, but Protestants do not.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What I find astounding when reading through the arguments by liberals and modernists is this: When someone dares to question the liberal irreverant practices that have been accepted by the church in the past few decades, they are attacked by the “openminded” progressivists for not following the Pope…absolutely laughable! Somehow they seem to forget that these new disciplines (or lack of) have come about because enough dissodent Presbyters, Bishops and laity thumbed their noses at the Pope long enough to get the Vatican to bow to their demands for communion in the hand, lay ministers, girl servers, etc, etc.

On top of this, when the Pope issues statements against the “abuses” in the liturgy (ie Redemptionis Sacramentum), these same arch-defenders of “current church teachings” have no desire to drop practices that were NEVER approved to begin with (ie glass pitchers and cups for the precious blood). Now thier attack against the orthodox minded Catholic is that we are stubborn and closed minded.

So if we receive in the hand and defend the authority of the Church to order the disciplines surrounding the Sacraments, we’re liberals and modernists? We naturally and automatically must approve abuses, ie, glass ware for communion? We’re not orhodox? Is the Holy Father not orthodox because he gives Communion in the hand?

Incidentally, the assertion that “orthodox-minded” Catholics are being “attacked” is patently false. You could try reading the thread before you comment. No one has attacked anyone for receiving on the tongue. Have a little look-see.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So if we receive in the hand and defend the authority of the Church to order the disciplines surrounding the Sacraments, we’re liberals and modernists? We naturally and automatically must approve abuses, ie, glass ware for communion? We’re not orthodox? What truth of the Church has anyone here denied?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So if we receive in the hand and defend the authority of the Church to order the disciplines surrounding the Sacraments, we’re liberals and modernists? We naturally and automatically must approve abuses, ie, glass ware for communion? We’re not orthodox? What dogma of the Church has been denied?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And it doesn’t matter why the protestants do it. Catholics were receiving communion in the hand long before there were protestants.

Precisely. A further example of this is Jack Chick’s harping on the title of “Queen of Heaven.” Astarte, a Middle Eastern goddess, was called by her devotees the “Queen of Heaven” centuries before Christianity (Chick believes that Marian “worship” is a continuation of this devtion to Astarte). We believe that when the Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into heaven, she was crowned as Queen of Heaven. By the the logic offered by some here, the title should have been avoided because it was first used to refer to some ancient Babylonian tart! Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[TradyDaddy]

So if we receive in the hand and defend the authority of the Church to order the disciplines surrounding the Sacraments, we’re liberals and modernists? We naturally and automatically must approve abuses, ie, glass ware for communion? We’re not orhodox? Is the Holy Father not orthodox because he gives Communion in the hand?

Incidentally, the assertion that “orthodox-minded” Catholics are being “attacked” is patently false. You could try reading the thread before you comment. No one has attacked anyone for receiving on the tongue. Have a little look-see.

1. The Church didn’t “order the discipline” of communion in the hand until enough liberal dissodents pushed thier agenda long and hard enough to get the Pope to cave and make it an exception to the rule. Then they used the argument, “well, the Pope says this is the way to do it now”, to justify brainwashing the next generation of 1st communicants in to believing that communion in the hand is the standard rather than the exception.
2. Because the rank and file Catholic over the past few decades has been so mislead and confused by the modernists who hijacked the church since Vat II, most have been conditioned to accept or tolerate each new agenda driven liberal adaptation/abuse. Sometimes even orthodox minded Catholics, yourself included, can be worn down to the point of going along with un-orthodox irreverent practices. It does not automatically make them, or you, a modernist. However, modernists, who display extreme displeasure at the thought of challenging their particular non-orthodox practice do tend to find little or no fault if not show full support for the other abuses.
3. Thank you for pointing out that, “No one has attacked anyone for receiving on the tongue”, we’re so blessed that you allow us to continue the practice. Unfortunately…that’s NOT what I said. I said that we are attacked for questioning or challenging liberal practices. You could try reading my post before commenting.

 

[pnewton]

1. The Church didn’t “order the discipline” of communion in the hand until enough liberal dissodents pushed thier agenda long and hard enough to get the Pope to cave and make it an exception to the rule…
2. … most have been conditioned to accept or tolerate each new agenda driven liberal adaptation/abuse. Sometimes even orthodox minded Catholics, yourself included, can be worn down to the point of going along with un-orthodox irreverent practices…

Do you know of any document where a pope stated that he was “caving in?” Or do you have superior insight or revelation to why communion in hand was allowed, apart from official documents?

While we are at it, do you know JKirkLVNV well enough to support your statement that he is worn down by liberals or is practicing communion in hand irreverantly?

This attitude of a superiority that defies all logic is why traditionalist get a bad rap for being arrogant. Fortunately, I find most traditionalist show more respect their fellow orthodox Catholics.