M
- Status
S
scylla
Guest
I am sorry if you think it is harassment, it just seems to me that instead of answering, you have changed the subject. I left an example response that explains why there is a Catholic reason for receiving on the tongue. This reflects our belief in the real presence and its observance over time. A response that asks a question is not an Catholic answer that reflects our belief.
Peter 3:15
I will refrain from asking if you state there is no Catholic answer or if you give one. I enjoy the participation in this forum but it is not my intention to give offense or to harass, I am just seeking a Catholic answer.
I will respond to other posts that are off the subject later, but I would much rather stick to the topic of the thread.
God Bless
Scylla
B
buffalo
Guest
RECEIVING COMMUNION IN THE HAND IS CONTRARY TO TRADITION
…The observations above show how far from historical truth are the progressives who pretend to justify Communion in the hand by that which supposedly was the common manner of communicating in the first centuries of Christianity.
As was the case with the Arians who dedicated themselves to introducing liturgical rites that minimalized the Sacred and Divine character of the Holy Eucharist, so also today a darkening of faith in the Real Presence is shown by those who joyfully adapt themselves to innovations such as Communion in the hand, in spite of the fact that the Holy See has affirmed that the traditional manner of communicating indicates a greater reverence on the part of the communicant in relation to the Holy Eucharist and form part of the preparation required for the Body and Blood of Our Lord to be received with the greatest fruit. (cf. Memoriale Domini).
The article was originally published in the September 2001 issue of The Catholic Voice.
…The observations above show how far from historical truth are the progressives who pretend to justify Communion in the hand by that which supposedly was the common manner of communicating in the first centuries of Christianity.
As was the case with the Arians who dedicated themselves to introducing liturgical rites that minimalized the Sacred and Divine character of the Holy Eucharist, so also today a darkening of faith in the Real Presence is shown by those who joyfully adapt themselves to innovations such as Communion in the hand, in spite of the fact that the Holy See has affirmed that the traditional manner of communicating indicates a greater reverence on the part of the communicant in relation to the Holy Eucharist and form part of the preparation required for the Body and Blood of Our Lord to be received with the greatest fruit. (cf. Memoriale Domini).
The article was originally published in the September 2001 issue of The Catholic Voice.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Please correct me if this is wrong BUT your wording here sounds like a threat to continue with this harassment until you get an answer you are happy with.
S
stmaria
Guest
The motivation behind communion in the hand and Eucharistic Ministers of Holy Communion are one and the same. The obsession for “active participation of the faithful”
What better way to ‘actively’ participate then to receive in the hand and for the laity to be involved.
Communion in the hand and EMHC began in 1964, long before it had been approved. It was started by Bishop Jean Bluyssen of the Netherlands who worked for Father Annibale Bugnin on the Commission to implement the Constitution on the Liturgy.
In his book* Reform of the Liturgy *Father Bugnini said that the practice of communion in the hand was “completely in the spirit of the council"
If you think I am exaggerating about the obsession of “active participation” consider this from Bugnini’s book:
Pg 209 Footnote 11. “The use of things mechanical also make headlines at the beginning of the liturgical reform…the “offertory machine” at Ferrara. This was a machine that allowed the faithful to make a host drop untouched into baskets, which were then taken to the altar at the time of the offertory. It was a **clever way **of letting the people **express their participation **and of consecration as many hosts as would be needed at the celebration, while at the same time safeguarding hygiene. But some journalists discovered **the ingenious device **and spread word of it; in the process, however, they misrepresented its function and spoke of it as though it were a machine for the automatic distribution of communion. Here again the Consilium had to intervene; it dealt with the matter in general terms in a short piece entitled “Mechanique et liturgie.”
What better way to ‘actively’ participate then to receive in the hand and for the laity to be involved.
Communion in the hand and EMHC began in 1964, long before it had been approved. It was started by Bishop Jean Bluyssen of the Netherlands who worked for Father Annibale Bugnin on the Commission to implement the Constitution on the Liturgy.
In his book* Reform of the Liturgy *Father Bugnini said that the practice of communion in the hand was “completely in the spirit of the council"
If you think I am exaggerating about the obsession of “active participation” consider this from Bugnini’s book:
Pg 209 Footnote 11. “The use of things mechanical also make headlines at the beginning of the liturgical reform…the “offertory machine” at Ferrara. This was a machine that allowed the faithful to make a host drop untouched into baskets, which were then taken to the altar at the time of the offertory. It was a **clever way **of letting the people **express their participation **and of consecration as many hosts as would be needed at the celebration, while at the same time safeguarding hygiene. But some journalists discovered **the ingenious device **and spread word of it; in the process, however, they misrepresented its function and spoke of it as though it were a machine for the automatic distribution of communion. Here again the Consilium had to intervene; it dealt with the matter in general terms in a short piece entitled “Mechanique et liturgie.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s see how the Church has used the term “active participation” .
S
stmaria
Guest
The members of the Consilium that were to implement the *Constitution on the Liturgy *had their own ideas of what, “active participation” meant.
S
scylla
Guest
I am just looking for an answer, not a question or a accusation of harassment. An accusation of harassment is not an answer either, I can give you more examples if it is difficult for you.
If you want communion in the hand because you like it and it makes you feel good then that is ok. I wont agree that it is a Catholic answer, but it is an answer.
If you want to affirm your position as just as good as the Priest and you should be able to touch the host too then that is an answer too.
If you want to prove that there is no real presence and affirm that the Presence of Christ is in ourselves, then that is an answer too.
If you want to affirm the power of the laity and reject the structure of the Church that is an answer also. (I mentioned this earlier)
If that is the way you were taught, this is what you are comfortable with and you do it respectfully, awestruck at the Presence of Christ in your hands then that is an answer too.
I am just looking for a why? Why?
I gave an answer that reflected the Catholic faith in my example. This is why I personally receive on the tongue as it reflects the Catholic faith and I can give a Catholic answer.
Please don’t dodge and try to change the subject, I do not intend offense and no harassment is intended, I am just looking for the motivation behind the support for it.
God Bless
Scylla
W
wow
Guest
I only take communion in my hand because I wear dentures and fear an accident if they loosened at the wrong time. Not likely but I fear it the same, so to avoid the accident I prefer my hand. Simple reason? I’m sure not everyone has the same issue I have but I see you asking and only wanted to offer you one reason.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
It is a simple and valid reason – but is it a ‘catholic’ reason as this other poster is using the term.I only take communion in my hand because I wear dentures and fear an accident if they loosened at the wrong time. Not likely but I fear it the same, so to avoid the accident I prefer my hand. Simple reason? I’m sure not everyone has the same issue I have but I see you asking and only wanted to offer you one reason.
M
mlchance
Guest
Putting aside the pressing question of your qualifications and authority to determine what constitutes a “Christian reason,” the reason I receive Communion in the hand is because the Eucharist is the source and summit Christian life.
– Mark L. Chance.
S
scylla
Guest
That does sound good, this is a motivation that is bound by physical constraints and is perfectly acceptable.I only take communion in my hand because I wear dentures and fear an accident if they loosened at the wrong time. Not likely but I fear it the same, so to avoid the accident I prefer my hand. Simple reason? I’m sure not everyone has the same issue I have but I see you asking and only wanted to offer you one reason.
The Catholic reason would be, to make communion available for those who have the physical requirements that make it pastorally prudent to allow the reception this way.
I am genuinely curious, wow you gave a good honest answer that has helped appreciate the reception of communion in the hand in another way. Thanks.
So Eilish, why not just give a any reason that gives your personal motivation, I will try in every way to apply it to the Catholic faith. I am not trying to antagonize you, I just want to understand your motivation. I hoped to find a Catholic reason, but I still would just like to know why.
God Bless
Scylla
S
scylla
Guest
Maybe I didn’t explain well at the beginning. A Catholic reason is the reason as it pertains to the Catholic faith, reflecting belief in dogma.
A non-christian answer would be, like this.
I do this because I like it better, it pleases me and I do it because I want to do it.
I gave examples, here is another…
I genuflect because I am acknowledging the presence of Christ in the Tabernacle with the traditional Latin rite acknowlegment of Christ by kneeling and performing the sign of the Cross.
I don’t genuflect because I don’t believe Christ is there. Non-Christian answer
I don’t genuflect because I cannot, my knees are bad but I still believe, I kneel in my heart. This is a good example of the physical impediment which prevents a person from doing the act but they still believe and do what they can to acknowledge Christ.
God Bless
Scylla
M
mlchance
Guest
I receive Communion in the hand because the Eucharist is the source and summit Christian life.
It’s non-Christian to do something because one likes it better, it pleases one, or because on wants to?
– Mark L. Chance.
S
scylla
Guest
When it excludes Christ, and is purely for self pleasure, yes.
Now if one says I do it so I can behold the majesty of Christ just for a moment in front of me, then that is pleasure centered on Christ which is then a Christian reason.
The focus is what determines it, let me give you an example…
If I receive in my hand so I can grab it because I like the feeling of power, I want to assert my ability to do this because I despise the difference between the clergy and the laity. Is that Christ centered?
Just give the personal reason and you will see if it is Christian. Examine your motive and reason for your action, is it to glorify Christ or you?
The Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, I agree.
God Bless
Scylla
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
Mark,
Your comment is a bit confusing. Could you explain how Communion in the Hand is what makes the Eucharist the source and summit of Christian Life?
One would think that the Mode does not define the Substance.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
It would not be confusing if you did not insert the issue.
Nothing in Mark’s comments shows that method of reception does anything positive or negative.
S
scylla
Guest
Do you disagree that a Christian reason, is a reason that reflects our Catholic faith as oppossed to personal reasons related to selfishness or pride?
Why not just give me your personal reason, if you don’t want to then don’t respond and state that you would rather not share.
Though I disagree with his outlook I admire Father Mcbrian who has the guts to say that the reasons he upholds his views are because he sees the faithful in a power struggle against the clergy.
God Bless
Scylla
F
Flank911
Guest
If Pope Benedict XVI issued an order that forbid communion in hand in the USA (in other words if he revoked the indult), I would follow it without so much as a word. Further, as a EMHC I would only distribute communion on the tongue. If I was told to do otherwise by my pastor or bishop I would cease being an EMHC, also without so much as a word.
That said, the sad part is a huge chunk of the Church would simply ignore the directive. We do that right now in my parish with things like pouring the Precious Blood, laity attempting to preach and having non-ordained/instituted people purifying vessels – things our current Pope has specifically commented on and I find that tragic.
Forbidding communion in hand (aside from whether it’s a good or bad thing) would be extremely divisive and ultimately turn some people away from the Church. Sure the naive and sanctimonious would claim the moral high ground as they judge those who do not comply but in the end we have the same problem – more division of God’s Church.
That said, the sad part is a huge chunk of the Church would simply ignore the directive. We do that right now in my parish with things like pouring the Precious Blood, laity attempting to preach and having non-ordained/instituted people purifying vessels – things our current Pope has specifically commented on and I find that tragic.
Forbidding communion in hand (aside from whether it’s a good or bad thing) would be extremely divisive and ultimately turn some people away from the Church. Sure the naive and sanctimonious would claim the moral high ground as they judge those who do not comply but in the end we have the same problem – more division of God’s Church.
- Status