E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
I don’t understand why you insist and risk being censored.
- Status
Y
YADA
Guest
Actually, another translation has the passage reading "For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amen"
Now “is taken” is surely different than “receives” but one also should look at the context of the homily … Pope Leo is not giving instruction on the rubrics of how to receive the Eucharist nor is he instructing presbyters on the rubrics of communicating the Eucharist … this is a sermon on the fast of the seventh month and on the reality [truth] of Jesus’ incarnation and how that truth is proved by the Eucharistic Feast and by our gifts of Mercy [which are alms, prayers and fasting]. This sermon is about comprehending the Jesus in the Eucharist and the Jesus in our good works and how that recognition is important in making our participation Holy.
To read into this work a direction on the mechanics of reception is a stretch at best … and misses entirely what Pope Leo was discussing … IMHO
This early christian writing is vastly different then the mystogogy instructions to the neophytes on how to approach “with your hands out stretched creating a throne…” which is of coarse intstruction on the rubrics of how to receive Christ in th Eucharist …
As an aside I found the Homily on the fast of the seventh month a good reflection for the start of Lent ---- I highly recommend it
P
palmas85
Guest
This question has been posed repeatedly in the time I’ve been on this forum. Generally speaking the answer comes down to several reasons.
1 A miniscule opinion but one that pops up from time to time is that the person feels that they are sticking their tongue out at God. Really, it’s been posted in just those words
or
2 Another minority opinion, apparently, is that it allows us to approach Christ on our own two feet as adults, not children waiting to be fed. We can feed ourselves. We don’t need someone to feed us.
or
3 A more common opinion
Scared of germs.
or
4A more common opinion
They did it in the early Church.
or
5 The reason brought forth more often than any other,
The Church says I can
I have never found any of these reasons particularly compelling or even very well thought out.
The first makes little if any sense except in a liberalist sort of way, you know the belief that Christ was a man who suffered martyrdom and died as a man. These are the same people who generally don’t believe in judgment or Hell either because as we all know, God does not judge He only loves. and the true purpose of religion is the ethical raising of society so that we as men can establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Very Germanic, very 19th century and very very influencial among many of our more noted theologians of the 20th century. In this view we are all basically equal with Christ because He was first and foremost a man. Christology from below at its finest:thumbsup:
The second is in a good place because it sounds like a second grader speaking doesn’t it?. Think about it for a second. These people want maturity so bad they equate eating with adulthood.
The third, These people often receive from the Chalice with no apparent fear of Germs so there does seem some inconsistency here but hey who knows?
The fourth completely ignores why Communion in the hand was practiced in the early church and also why it was abandoned by the early Church so very early on.
The fifth and oddly enough the most common is self explanatory. They don’t know why and it really doesn’t matter to them. I actually saw a post once that said
THE CHURCH SAYS I CAN. NUFF SAID
A truly thought provoking and profound statement if there ever was one. I can almost imagine the child covering his ears and sticking his tongue out.
I have yet to see a Church Document or a post anywhere that in any way shape or form explains why the practice was re-introduced and why it is superior or even equal to the traditional practice… In fact all the evidence seems to point to the fact that parishes started doing it on their own in great part during the general ecumenical good times following Vatican II. In fact the main reason seems to be that it was different, obviously and immediately different and noticible.
And if you were alive in those days you will remember, that is if you are honest with yourself, that for a longtime the general feeling was
IF ITS NEW AND PROGRESSIVE ITS GOOD,
IF ITS OLD AND TRADITIONAL ITS BAD
Hey maybe one of our new progressive posters can explain it? What do you say, any better reasons than the ones that you guys usually throw out?
1 A miniscule opinion but one that pops up from time to time is that the person feels that they are sticking their tongue out at God. Really, it’s been posted in just those words
or
2 Another minority opinion, apparently, is that it allows us to approach Christ on our own two feet as adults, not children waiting to be fed. We can feed ourselves. We don’t need someone to feed us.
or
3 A more common opinion
Scared of germs.
or
4A more common opinion
They did it in the early Church.
or
5 The reason brought forth more often than any other,
The Church says I can
I have never found any of these reasons particularly compelling or even very well thought out.
The first makes little if any sense except in a liberalist sort of way, you know the belief that Christ was a man who suffered martyrdom and died as a man. These are the same people who generally don’t believe in judgment or Hell either because as we all know, God does not judge He only loves. and the true purpose of religion is the ethical raising of society so that we as men can establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Very Germanic, very 19th century and very very influencial among many of our more noted theologians of the 20th century. In this view we are all basically equal with Christ because He was first and foremost a man. Christology from below at its finest:thumbsup:
The second is in a good place because it sounds like a second grader speaking doesn’t it?. Think about it for a second. These people want maturity so bad they equate eating with adulthood.
The third, These people often receive from the Chalice with no apparent fear of Germs so there does seem some inconsistency here but hey who knows?
The fourth completely ignores why Communion in the hand was practiced in the early church and also why it was abandoned by the early Church so very early on.
The fifth and oddly enough the most common is self explanatory. They don’t know why and it really doesn’t matter to them. I actually saw a post once that said
THE CHURCH SAYS I CAN. NUFF SAID
A truly thought provoking and profound statement if there ever was one. I can almost imagine the child covering his ears and sticking his tongue out.
I have yet to see a Church Document or a post anywhere that in any way shape or form explains why the practice was re-introduced and why it is superior or even equal to the traditional practice… In fact all the evidence seems to point to the fact that parishes started doing it on their own in great part during the general ecumenical good times following Vatican II. In fact the main reason seems to be that it was different, obviously and immediately different and noticible.
And if you were alive in those days you will remember, that is if you are honest with yourself, that for a longtime the general feeling was
IF ITS NEW AND PROGRESSIVE ITS GOOD,
IF ITS OLD AND TRADITIONAL ITS BAD
Hey maybe one of our new progressive posters can explain it? What do you say, any better reasons than the ones that you guys usually throw out?
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Have you seen any Church Documents that explains this is an inferior practice?
Do you believe the Church would truly bring into practice something that is inappropriate for reception of the Sacrament?
S
stmaria
Guest
No offense. But if communion in the hand were forbidden I could not bring myself to take communion on the tongue from an EMHC.
From a Deacon, yes. But from a lay person that might just be my next door neighbor, no. Sorry, maybe it’s just me
F
Flank911
Guest
I just follow the Church. I do my best not to feel I know more than God and His Church.
Nowhere has the Church suggested the efficacy or the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament is dependent upon the person distributing it.
Something made you comment as you did. You might pray on what it is as it could possibly be pride…
M
Margarite
Guest
I know that I dislike receiving from a lay person, only because it seems as though they take away from the purpose of the priest. Basically, a priest is needed only for the consecration, confession, and confirmation. Everything else has been taken over by deacons and lay ministers. It is sad.
I don’t believe it to be pride, but rather a dislike of all that the Extraordinary minister stands for. Also since I receive on the tongue, many shrink away and almost drop the host. Thankfully it has never happened to me, but…
I also don’t like the fact that these people whose hands have never been consecrated are distributing Our Lord. If you read this article:
franciscan-archive.org/ap…ca/tongue.html
you will know that even a priest, whose hands have been consecrated, must think twice before touching Our Lord. How much more important and hesitant is it when a lay person touches Our Lord.
I know that in some places Extraordinary Ministers are needed. They are needed in my parish where there are 30,000 families (that is families not people) and only 7-8 masses on Sunday. Each mass is jam packed and at 10 and noon two masses are held at once, one in the church and the other in a smaller Adoration chapel. We have only two permanent priests, and two others that help out on Sundays, so we have an army of EMotE, and still the cantor will sing 2-3 songs before the priest sits. So I know the need, but that does not mean that I have to like the position.
P
palmas85
Guest
I haven’t seen any official documents that describe it as inferior, superior or equal. In fact, I’ve never seen any documents from the Church explaining in any coherent fashion why it was authorized in the first place.
Yes, I think the Church could err in this area. Why not? The Church has erred in other areas in its history. The Church is protected against error in certain areas, Not in all by any means.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
It seems to be a pretty outrageous comment to make (CITH is inferior to COTT) without some proper documentation.
While the Church has made errors in certain areas it does not make sense that it is not protected against instituting practices deliberately lacking in proper reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
F
Flank911
Guest
It’s not up to me to judge anyone but it sounds like pride to me. You’re right – it would be great if there was such an abundance of priests that both deacons and EMsHC had nothing to do. But refusing to receive holy communion from deacons and EMsHC won’t help to achieve that state.
Pride sounds like it’s rearing its ugly head again when you talk about “unconsecrated hands.” If the Church has no prohibition against it, why do you?
Also just where is your 30K family parish? That’s terribly unhealthy. We have about 3.5K families with 5 full-time priests and 7 Masses every Sunday and it’s a terribly unhealthy atmosphere. 30K families? That’s bordering on the ridiculous.
At an average size of 3 people/family that’s 90K members. You said what, 8 Masses/Sunday? What does that work out to? 11,250 attendees per Mass? Hmm… :dts:
M
mlchance
Guest
Did I say Communion in the hand makes the Eucharist the source and summit of Christian life? If not, why would I explain something I didn’t claim happens?
– Mark L. Chance.
T
tcraig
Guest
You know, I just don’t understand this whole thread. 
Why would one have to provide a “Catholic” or “Christian” reason for receiving communion in the hand as opposed to on the tongue? Why isn’t the fact that the Church allows one to receive either way (at least in the countries I’ve been in) enough for some people???
There are many areas where the Church doesn’t micromanage the faithful, and legitimate options are available. If someone is choosing a method of receiving communion that the Church allows, then it shouldn’t matter one bit what the ultimate reasoning behind it is.
As for the fact that communion in the hand was reintroduced as an abuse, that’s neither here nor there. The Church addressed the matter at the time, and* it’s not an abuse now*.
Why would one have to provide a “Catholic” or “Christian” reason for receiving communion in the hand as opposed to on the tongue? Why isn’t the fact that the Church allows one to receive either way (at least in the countries I’ve been in) enough for some people???
There are many areas where the Church doesn’t micromanage the faithful, and legitimate options are available. If someone is choosing a method of receiving communion that the Church allows, then it shouldn’t matter one bit what the ultimate reasoning behind it is.
As for the fact that communion in the hand was reintroduced as an abuse, that’s neither here nor there. The Church addressed the matter at the time, and* it’s not an abuse now*.
S
scylla
Guest
The Church allows a lot in many ways to allow people to come closer without beating them over the head.You know, I just don’t understand this whole thread.
Why would one have to provide a “Catholic” or “Christian” reason for receiving communion in the hand as opposed to on the tongue? Why isn’t the fact that the Church allows one to receive either way (at least in the countries I’ve been in) enough for some people???
There are many areas where the Church doesn’t micromanage the faithful, and legitimate options are available. If someone is choosing a method of receiving communion that the Church allows, then it shouldn’t matter one bit what the ultimate reasoning behind it is.
As for the fact that communion in the hand was reintroduced as an abuse, that’s neither here nor there. The Church addressed the matter at the time, and* it’s not an abuse now*.
But what is wrong with asking a question?
People ask me questions all the time and it sure doesn’t bother me? I practice my faith with reasons for all my actions, if those actions do not reflect my belief I give reasons.
This is curious to me, why do people get bothered? It is because deep down inside you know something is wrong? If there is nothing wrong then give an explanation and it will all make sense.
Again what is wrong with asking what is the personal motivation, if you cannot give a Christian answer, then be honest and say really why. Is it to assert a univeral priesthood? It is personal preference? Is it just the way you have learned and are comfortable? Is it a fascination with identifying with the early Church, rejecting tradition?
It shouldn’t bother anybody to give their reason unless it is something embarrassing.
At my Church I assist the Priest and I pour the Precious Blood as he breaks the Eucharist. This is wrong and yet if someone asks why I do it I will telll them.
I do it out of obedience to my Bishop who commands us to do this and the person above me too. I know it is wrong but I do it out of obedience asking God’s forgiveness each time as I wait until I do not have to do this. The Bishop knows it is wrong too as it is clear from the document he sent to the parishes but he is seeking permission so the practice is to continue until he possibly gets permission.
I cannot give a Catholic answer why we pour, it is purely out of a desire for the laity to participate and to diminish the special place of Christ’s Priest at Mass. I asked the diocese and the lady said it is so bugs don’t fall in the cups. I guess bugs stay away from the glass pitcher.
The reason I do it is because they will just get someone else and that person might not be fighting to be faithful to the Church, rather than liturgists\people who want to attack the Holy Church from within.
The Church does allow my parish to do this as it hasn’t been stopped but all I can do is be faithful. I can certainly ask questions and respectfully check to see if people can give Christian reasons for our actions.
Our actions reflect our belief, I am genuinely curious if there are good reasons and I see nothing wrong with asking questions. That is what led me back to the perfect faith, the Catholic Church.
God Bless
Scylla
J
japhy
Guest
For those wondering if the Church has said that receiving on the tongue is, in any way, shape, or form, “better” than receiving in the hand… Memoriale Domini:
So the Church has said that receiving on the tongue is more reverent than receiving in the hand: “the practice which must be considered traditional [that of placing of the Host on the tongue] ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity.” More effectively than what? Than another method, namely, that of receiving in the hand. History has shown that, because receiving in the hand was phased out because of the abuses associated with it.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
So we come back to would the HMC deliberately institute as an option, that in and of itself, lessens those things.
J
japhy
Guest
The Church practiced Communion in the hand early on, yes, but over time She learned a better way.
Now, did Holy Mother Church re-institute this practice? There’s arguments either way. It was re-introduced illegally. It’s an indult-ed practice, allowed under special circumstances (which, as Memoriale Domini explains, means the practice had to be already illegally happening and not being stopped by the bishop, the guardian of the liturgy). It hasn’t been universally re-instituted, probably because the Church knows it’s not equal to Communion on the tongue.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
The Church granted the indult.
Bishops (who are also part of the Church last time I looked) allowed it before and/or after the indult.
The Church did re-institute the practice.
It does not have to be universally re-instituted just like the MP does not force every parish all over the world to offer the TLM.
The issue of ‘equal’/‘inferior’ is not appropriate because it infers that the Church would DELIBERATELY approve the use of something that in itself demeans the Real Presence.
J
japhy
Guest
But every priest in the world has the right to say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Not every diocese (or conference) in the world has the right to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Summorum Pontificum did something universally (and it’s not an indult); Memoriale Domini was a case-sensitive indult. Those two are different concepts.
Communion in the hand lends itself to desecration of the Most Blessed Sacrament considerably more than communion on the tongue.
Surely you’re not going to say from an objective standpoint that Eucharistic Prayer I and Eucharistic Prayer II are “equal”! And yet, both are approved by the Church (although not for all circumstances).
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
To say that the HMC has instituted or re-instituted ANYTHING that in itself demeans the Real Presence is to say that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.
Side note - the Pope (or any valid future pope) has the authority to take away the ‘right’ to say the TLM by any and all priests if he wants to. It may never happen but it could. So as of this moment in time your comment is true.
A
ac_claire
Guest
I receive communion in the hand because that’s the way 90% of the people receive in the two parishes I go to. I prefer receiving on the tongue, but I am afraid that I would be focusing too much on myself, on “making a point,” if I went up to receive on the tongue now. Not saying this is rational, but it is my concern. I do understand that in and of itself, COTT can’t inherently be more reverent than CITH. The manner in which you receive doesn’t trump the disposition of your soul.
I’ve thought a lot about why I prefer COTT…I think that for me personally, it does feel more reverent. COTT is the more traditional way; it was the only option I saw growing up. So there’s the sentimental factor. And I think the masses where COTT is the norm do tend to be more traditional and more reverent, in general.
I notice that the aprox. 10% who do receive on the tongue at my churches are either a.) older ladies wearing mantillas, or b.) parents who have their hands full carrying their children. I’ve thought more than once that I’d love to have a kid to tote up there so I’d have an excuse to receive COTT. Actually…lately I have been considering going up and receiving on the tongue anyway. My challenge is to figure out if I can do this without my action of receiving “against the grain” turning into a distraction from the Sacrament itself. Not saying other people would be distracted, but I know I would be. I’m pretty certain I am overthinking this.
I’ve thought a lot about why I prefer COTT…I think that for me personally, it does feel more reverent. COTT is the more traditional way; it was the only option I saw growing up. So there’s the sentimental factor. And I think the masses where COTT is the norm do tend to be more traditional and more reverent, in general.
I notice that the aprox. 10% who do receive on the tongue at my churches are either a.) older ladies wearing mantillas, or b.) parents who have their hands full carrying their children. I’ve thought more than once that I’d love to have a kid to tote up there so I’d have an excuse to receive COTT. Actually…lately I have been considering going up and receiving on the tongue anyway. My challenge is to figure out if I can do this without my action of receiving “against the grain” turning into a distraction from the Sacrament itself. Not saying other people would be distracted, but I know I would be. I’m pretty certain I am overthinking this.
- Status