Tongue or Hand?

[TradyDaddy]

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.

1. Excuse me kind sir or maam, but exactly where in my post did I state that JKirk specifically was “practicing communion in hand irreverantly” ? You guys love to twist other peoples’ words and I admit you are pretty good at it. However, if you will take the time to actually read my post, I said that, "sometimes even orthodox minded Catholics, yourself included, can be worn down to the point of going along with un-orthodox irreverent practices. I DID NOT say that JKirk specifically was doing this. The point is that communion in the hand is in general causing many Catholics to recieve communion irreverently. It invites the opportunity for some who are already weak in thier faith to become weaker. This probably does NOT include you or JKirk…you probably both recieve communion reverently as possible, however, we have a duty to help our fellow Catholics who are not as strong in their faith to practice in ways that foster devotion and reverence. Do I have to go to multiple locations around the country to put hours of video documentation together of the irreverence fostered by communion in the hand? Recieving communion at a communion rail, kneeling, hands underneath a rail cloth, directly from a Priest with the altar boy right there with the patten leaves little room for mischief.
2. This condiscending attitude that defies all logic is why liberals get the bad rap they deserve. Your charge against me of being arrogant is unfair in itself; do you know me well enough to make that claim? My opposition to the practice of communion in the hand is out of a desire to humble myself before God, and out of concern for the spiritual well being of my fellow Catholic. Part of our Catechesis is our liturgical disciplines (Lex Orandi). Sloppy practices lead to improper understanding (ie. disbelief in the real presence).
   If I know my friend has a drinking problem but I offer him a drink anyway and I just keep saying," well, I don’t have a problem with just drinking one or two and stopping ", then I am guilty of leading that friend of mine to sin if he indeed continues to drink. Likewise, even if I recieve communion in the hand as reverently as possible, but I know that good number of my fellow Catholics do not, then I must at some point overcome my self centered arrogant desire to recieve Communion that way because of it’s ill effect on others.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

**One time and one time only warning, gentlepersons!

If the level of charity and civility in this thread doesn’t markedly improve, the thread will be closed and there may well be consequences associated with that decision.**

Joe Monahan

 

[RCCDefender]

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.

Maybe I am just asking for trouble, but I just wanted to point out that I think what TradyDaddy was saying was that the orthodox position of the material for the cup that holds the Precious Blood was made of was being attacked by those who didn’t want to conform to the Church teaching on that matter.

 

[Ham1]

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.

This is a pretty serious charge to level against the Church and the Pope. Do you have some proof? How do you know that the Pope wasn’t moved by the Holy Spirit to make such a decision?

 

[pnewton]

1. This condiscending attitude that defies all logic is why liberals get the bad rap they deserve. .

Why does anything I say reflect on liberals? Is this another assumption you make?

Before you say I misquote or misunderstand you, let me point out that the pronoun “this” requires an antecedant. If there was another in possible antecedant in your post, I don’t see it.

 

[TradyDaddy]

I think we have recieved a request to tone down the rhetoric. Let’s honor the moderators request.

 

[TradyDaddy]

This is a pretty serious charge to level against the Church and the Pope. Do you have some proof? How do you know that the Pope wasn’t moved by the Holy Spirit to make such a decision?

Here is a link to an article with a thorough explanation:

aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/hand.html

Funny how it was voted down three years in a row by the NCCB when people wanted so bad and the Pope was so moved bythe Holy Spirit to establish it?.. go figure.

 

[TradyDaddy]

Wow… in that article, it points out that “Call To Action” was involved in the movement to get Communion in the hand accepted… [edited] … now there’s some good company for you “orthodox” Catholics who like communion in the hand… [edited]

 

[pnewton]

Wow… in that article, it points out that “Call To Action” was involved in the movement to get Communion in the hand accepted… [edited] … now there’s some good company for you “orthodox” Catholics who like communion in the hand… [edited]

However, the Holy Father allowed for the possibility in 1969, seven years prior to Call to Action supporting it in 1976. While I do like being in the company of unfaithful groups like this, it is just as irrelevant as the fact that traditionalist are who receive on the tongue are in the company of schismatic groups like the SSPX. So what? It serves as no indication at all as to the propriety of the practice, in either case.

I resent that you put the word “orthodox” in quotations when there was no grammatical reason too, except as a rhetorical device of questioning orthodoxy, and this after your post asking others to tone it down.

The article makes the following statement:

Alas, it is not so! Communion-in-the-hand weakens faith in the Real Presence.

There is no reason or substantiation to this statement, nor any of the conclusions in the article. For example, it also states:

Only with the belief that the Holy Eucharist is not supernatural, can this practice of communion-in-the-hand not matter. Since it is truly the most extraordinary substance on earth, surely our comportment should reflect that? Surely our faith in the Holy Eucharist, which deserves our greatest reverence, should reflect into our actions in actually receiving the sacrament?

It is precisely because of my reverence that I prefer to receive in my hand, as I have stated in my first two posts here. Basically every conclusion aside from the history follows as a non sequitor to the history. No Church documents are quoted, so the article lacks any authority.

The orthodox Catholic is one who follows authoritative doctrine and discipline of the Church, not personal tastes and choices. Where the Church allows a choice, the orthodox Catholic may freely choose and should not be subject to recrimination and belittling by those who do not approve of the current authority.

 

[demerzel85]

The orthodox Catholic is one who follows authoritative doctrine and discipline of the Church, not personal tastes and choices. Where the Church allows a choice, the orthodox Catholic may freely choose and should not be subject to recrimination and belittling by those who do not approve of the current authority.

The main point is only that reception of the Eucharist on the tongue is the normative way, while on the hand is only via indult. If the indult is given then yes the laity is allowed to choose. Even so proper catechesis on both sides of the divide is seriously lacking.

 

[pnewton]

If the indult is given then yes the laity is allowed to choose. Even so proper catechesis on both sides of the divide is seriously lacking.

You are correct. I am exercising a narrow view of how it is where I live. I should say that since this choice is permitted in America, it should be a non issue. Obviously, were I to travel abroad, I would follow local discipline, as I am sure we all would.

 

[TradyDaddy]

You are correct. I am exercising a narrow view of how it is where I live. I should say that since this choice is permitted in America, it should be a non issue. Obviously, were I to travel abroad, I would follow local discipline, as I am sure we all would.

That is a good point pnewton. I too have been exibiting a narrow view based on anecdotal evidence which is not always “proof” of a particular point of view which I had convinced myself of. I now have cause to rethink my position.

.

 

[TradyDaddy]

However, the Holy Father allowed for the possibility in 1969, seven years prior to Call to Action supporting it in 1976…

My appology, I must have severly misread Paul VI 's encyclicle, Memoriale Domini. I honestly thought that the practice was being done by dissodents prior to 1969 since Paul VI wrote…

"Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately."

And I really was under the misunderstanding that Paul VI along with the majority of Bishops of 1969 were opposed to this practice since in the document it points out the votes that were taken with these results:

"**Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows: **
** 1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
Yes: 597
No: 1,233
Yes, but with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20

1. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
   Yes: 751
   No: 1,215
   Invalid votes, 70
2. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
   Yes: 835
   No: 1,185
   Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,11 in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church. "**

I don’t know how I got so confused over the issue. I now see that the desire of the Church was to change the custom and that it was not due to individuals and groups. Thank you for helping me to see this.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Wow… in that article, it points out that “Call To Action” was involved in the movement to get Communion in the hand accepted… [edited] … now there’s some good company for you “orthodox” Catholics who like communion in the hand… [edited]

That does not make it wrong. Shall we stop reading the Bible, becacause of the zeal of Protestants for the Bible ? Do we stop believing there is a God, because some whom believe there is a God are not even Christian ? Of course not ​

There is nothing inherently sinful in receiving in the hand, nor is there anything inherently holy or pious about receiving on the tongue. It is inherently wrong to steal or to take the name of God in vain, or to commit adultery - none of these are morally equivalent to receiving in the hand. They are sinful of their very nature - which it is not.

As to motives: it is impossible to speculate, without running the risk of making rash judgements - when one does not know, and in cases of doubt, the morally appropriate course is to interpret people’s motives favourably. So unless we know that people have a morally bad motive for receiving in the hand, or for having sought or allowed it, we have to assume they are not acting for morally bad reasons. To assume the worst of others is not a good idea; there may be perfectly innocent reasons for doing things that can also be done for bad reasons.

As for CTA: James Hitchcock says in his book “Catholicism confronts Modernity” (IIRC; it was published in 1979) something to the effect that some of CTA’s demands are legitimate. If that is so, then something legitimate does not became illegitimate merely because it is sought by those who (supposedly or really) are not in the CC. What is important is the issue itself - whether it be the manner of receiving Holy Communion, or anything else.

As for keeping [bad ?] company - Jesus kept some appalling company (appalling from the POV of his critics, that is). One cannot always choose one’s company. If the argument is valid, then Catholics should stop opposing abortion, because a lot of homosexuals also oppose it.

If the case against reception in the hand is to be made:

• it can’t use the argument - or rather, the objection - from bad company
• it can’t prejudge the motives of others
• it needs to be aware of the possibility that good things can be done for morally bad or unpersuasive reasons; and that this is possible on both sides of the argument. ##

 

[bear06]

It has nothing to do with personal preference.

Communion on the tongue is the norm. In the Hand is an INDULT.

Communion in the hand was re-introduced in Western Christianity to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood by Protestants. This CANNOT BE DENIED.

It resurfaced in our Church by disobedient clergy aping the Protestant practice.

Ken

I really couldn’t care less why the Protestants do it. It was an accepted practice of our Church before and since the Church has again allowed this practice, it is acceptable again. To quote Ken, this CANNOT BE DENIED. Yes, it was wrong for those to receive and allow Our Lord to be received this way before the Church gave permission but, once the Church again approved this discipline, it became acceptable. In fact, if it had never been a practice and the Church allowed this discipline, it would be acceptable.

Thankfully, our Church has given us the option of receiving on the tongue which is what I do.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Here’s the bottom line:

1. The Church has been given authority by Christ to bind or to loose.
2. The Church has allowed Communion in the hand.
3. None of us on this board have the same authority as the Church.
4. Whether we like it or not, Christ, through His Church, has allowed communion in the hand.
5. Anyone that claims that Communion in the hand is wrong, is claiming more authority than Christ’s Church.

May our Lord’s blessings be upon all of you.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

On the points well-stated above, this thread appears to have run its course and is closed.

Thanks to all who participated.

Joe Monahan
Moderator