Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed?

[cmotherofpirl]

The bottom line is the Church permits it, therefore you may not like it or do it, but you can't condemn it. It is a discipline that the Church changes as She sees fit.

[Amory]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343771366' post='2460845']
The bottom line is the Church permits it, therefore you may not like it or do it, but you can't condemn it.[/quote]

I don't think it's condemning a discipline to say that maybe there could be greater benefit in discontinuing it.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343771366' post='2460845']
It is a discipline that the Church changes as She sees fit.
[/quote]

And, of course, the Holy See very well may see fit to change it due to reasoning and persuasion that bishops, priests, and laity alike have offered in favor of restoring Communion on the tongue alone.

The Church does not err, but there is always room for reform of her disciplines. After all, many Church disciplines would have never originated to begin with if someone wouldn't have had the bright idea, "Maybe we should do things this way."

[Papist]

[img]http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/attachments/f21/33188d1302130092-molly-dee-how-i-love-you-let-me-count-ways-troll-b-gone.jpg[/img]

[Hubertus]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343746277' post='2460603']
After giving this more careful consideration last night, I had to remove my props from the original post. I did so because, while the intent of the speaker in the video is good, he's missing a basic idea that is not found in his video - obedience. I have 3 reasons for thinking so:[list=1]
[*]He deliberately tells people to disobey their priests - a BIG no no! This should have been the only red flag I needed, but somehow it slipped past me originally.

[*]He shows 2 different kinds of Mass images - EF images and clown Mass images. This insinuates that he sees non-EF Masses as all clown Masses, which is the general prideful attitude that I've found cultivated at strictly EF (such as FSSP) parishes. The proof of this can be found in #1.

[*]He keeps using himself as an example; i.e. "Look at me", and "I started doing it, and then other people followed...". Just another sign of misplaced pride, which has led to his disobedient attitude.
[/list]
He's exactly right, though, in that we don't act like we believe.

*Edited for typo
[/quote]
It's been a while since I've watched the video.. Where was he telling people to be disobedient?

Also, I don't think self-righteousness applies to these scenarios. If someone were self-righteous about what they were doing, they wouldn't be trying to convince others to do it, because then they wouldn't have the chance to appear righteous. Right?

[Hubertus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343771366' post='2460845']
The bottom line is the Church permits it, therefore you may not like it or do it, but you can't condemn it. It is a discipline that the Church changes as She sees fit.
[/quote]
But can we not say, "But this is better"?

We aren't saying that receiving Communion in the hand is a sin or anything. As I mentioned earlier, I receive in the hand sometimes under certain circumstances. I don't feel like I've offended God because, yes, the Church does permit it. But I do still think that receiving on the tongue in general is just a better thing for us to do.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343746277' post='2460603']
After giving this more careful consideration last night, I had to remove my props from the original post. I did so because, while the intent of the speaker in the video is good, he's missing a basic idea that is not found in his video - obedience. I have 3 reasons for thinking so:[list=1]
[*]He deliberately tells people to disobey their priests - a BIG no no! This should have been the only red flag I needed, but somehow it slipped past me originally.

[*]He shows 2 different kinds of Mass images - EF images and clown Mass images. This insinuates that he sees non-EF Masses as all clown Masses, which is the general prideful attitude that I've found cultivated at strictly EF (such as FSSP) parishes. The proof of this can be found in #1.

[*]He keeps using himself as an example; i.e. "Look at me", and "I started doing it, and then other people followed...". Just another sign of misplaced pride, which has led to his disobedient attitude.
[/list]
He's exactly right, though, in that we don't act like we believe.

*Edited for typo
[/quote]

You're wrong on all three counts.

1) Priests do not have the right to forbid the laity to receive on the tongue. The laity do not have to obey or rather be forced to take communion on the hand if they choose to receive on the tongue. The priests that would force such a thing must be obedient to the Church.

2) He only shows one image of a clown mass, and one image of a cookie mass. There is only a few videos/moving images of an EF Mass. The only ones I can feel for sure is the one at the beginning, and the one with Pio Padre which could have also just as easily been a OF Mass. But most you can't really tell if they are EF or OF forms of the Mass. Most seem to be Adoration Chapels that could be at a EF or OF parish. There are also a number of clips and images of Papal Masses which are OF Masses.
Also accusing someone of pride (let alone whole parishes) as you have done is a very serious charge. One should have more evidence to accuse someone of it other than some filler slideshow images. It is counterproductive because it can be, and rightfully so, viewed as hypocritical.

3) He isn't saying 'look at me look at me I'm so holy do what I do.' He mentions that when he started to receive on the tongue he found that others follow suite. But it is a brief mention, and it should not be viewed in the negative light you've put on it.

Edited August 1, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Papist]

There's a lot of conjecture all over this thread.

[Ice_nine]

I think receiving on the tongue while kneeling is probably the most reverent way.


Well, this is God we're talking about. So crawling and prostrating yourself would perhaps be the most reverent, but the time that would take . . .


I compromise by genuflecting before I receive on the tongue. There's only like one person I"ve seen at my parish who kneels while receiving, and he always last in line, probs so he doesn't get ppl all mad for causing an extra 2 second delay. At least that's what my thought process is. I feel to whimpy to do it. Shame

But yeah just more conjecture from this end over here. I think we all can agree that the Jesus in the Eucharist deserves MUCH more respect than He has been generally given.

[mortify]

Communion in the hand is permitted because the Apostolic Authority has been severely weakened and belief in the real presence dimished.

[KnightofChrist]

Can a bishop (or priest) prohibit receiving Communion on the tongue?

Source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-bishop-prohibit-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue

Full Question

Recently I was attending Mass in another diocese, and when I approached the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist to receive on the tongue, I was denied Communion. Not wanting to make a scene, but fairly confident of my rights, I whispered that I can receive this way. The minister apologized but said that the bishop does not permit Communion on the tongue. How can this be?

Answer

The universal law of the Latin rite is that we receive Communion on the tongue. To receive in the hand is an indult or special permission that does not exist in most parts of the world. By law, it is a right of the faithful to receive on the tongue, and the faithful must not have their rights denied.

The Vatican promotes Communion on the tongue not only for its long tradition but because it "expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist" and "removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species" (Memorial Domini 1277).

Read More: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-bishop-prohibit-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue

[KnightofChrist]

OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS

Source: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html

Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling

The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather early on a process took place to change this practice.

From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest.

Therefore, for various reasons, among which the Angelic Doctor cites respect for the Sacrament, he writes: “. . . out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Over the centuries the Church has always characterized the moment of Holy Communion with sacredness and the greatest respect, forcing herself constantly to develop to the best of her ability external signs that would promote understanding of this great sacramental mystery. In her loving and pastoral solicitude the Church has made sure that the faithful receive Holy Communion having the right interior dispositions, among which dispositions stands out the need for the Faithful to comprehend and consider interiorly the Real Presence of Him Whom they are to receive. (See The Catechism of Pope Pius X, nn. 628 & 636). The Western Church has established kneeling as one of the signs of devotion appropriate to communicants. A celebrated saying of Saint Augustine, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, ("Sacrament of Love"), teaches: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9). Kneeling indicates and promotes the adoration necessary before receiving the Eucharistic

From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: "Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration" [The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species” [cited in the Letter "This Congregation" of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].

John Paul II, in his last Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia ("The Church comes from the Eucharist"), wrote in n. 61: “By giving the Eucharist the prominence it deserves, and by being careful not to diminish any of its dimensions or demands, we show that we are truly conscious of the greatness of this gift. We are urged to do so by an uninterrupted tradition, which from the first centuries on has found the Christian community ever vigilant in guarding this ‘treasure.’ Inspired by love, the Church is anxious to hand on to future generations of Christians, without loss, her faith and teaching with regard to the mystery of the Eucharist. There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation.’”

In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.

[Papist]

Did I miss something? Did someone make the argument that receiving on the tongue while kneeling is forbidden? If so, he is wrong. Let's move on.

My understanding is: Receiving on the tongue and in the hand are allowed. Receiving while kneeling and standing are allowed. We are directed to bow before receiving. I don't believe genuflecting before receiving is discouraged.


I receive on the tongue b/c I don't want to hold the Body of Christ in my hand and minister to myself. I genuflect before receiving. I do so b/c it hit me one day that if I am to genuflect before the tabernacle, then it makes to genuflect before the Body of Christ I am receiving that is right in front of me.

[i]This post is not directed at any one person.[/i]

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343780271' post='2460897']
You're wrong on all three counts.

1) Priests do not have the right to forbid the laity to receive on the tongue. The laity do not have to obey or rather be forced to take communion on the hand if they choose to receive on the tongue. The priests that would force such a thing must be obedient to the Church.

2) He only shows one image of a clown mass, and one image of a cookie mass. There is only a few videos/moving images of an EF Mass. The only ones I can feel for sure is the one at the beginning, and the one with Pio Padre which could have also just as easily been a OF Mass. But most you can't really tell if they are EF or OF forms of the Mass. Most seem to be Adoration Chapels that could be at a EF or OF parish. There are also a number of clips and images of Papal Masses which are OF Masses.
Also accusing someone of pride (let alone whole parishes) as you have done is a very serious charge. One should have more evidence to accuse someone of it other than some filler slideshow images. It is counterproductive because it can be, and rightfully so, viewed as hypocritical.

3) He isn't saying 'look at me look at me I'm so holy do what I do.' He mentions that when he started to receive on the tongue he found that others follow suite. But it is a brief mention, and it should not be viewed in the negative light you've put on it.
[/quote]


1) You're right. Priests don't have the right to do that. The laity do not have to obey? ??? ?? What??? Would you agree that laity have the moral obligation to obey whenever not sinful? Do you think it is sinful for laity to stand and/or receive in the hand (when the USCCB has declared it to be the norm in the US, and when it is allowed by the Vatican)? If we follow the logic, then yes, laity should obey the priest, even when the priest is wrong. It's not about being right, it's about being obedient, and this is where the speaker goes wrong.

2) True - the Pope's Mass images, and those of St. Pio, were most likely OF Masses. I wrote my post a day after watching the video, and forgot about those. It's been a couple days now, but (I believe) the adoration scenes I saw had the monstrances up on an altar next to the wall (i.e. the high altar) - and are therefore most likely EF chapels. My comment here wasn't based on logical proof, but on the sense of the intentions of the speaker that I got while watching the video.

Yes, I'm accusing the speaker of pride. Telling anyone to disobey a priest (when not sinful) is a sure sign of that. I'm not accusing any parish of pride - but I am saying that strictly EF parishes do [i]tend [/i]to create an atmosphere of disrespect for the OF Mass.

3) Well, now you're arguing more on my level, which is one of personal perception. Actually, I remember at least 2 distinct, separate instances of the speaker calling attention to his own actions, which has always personally put me off.


General) Don't get me wrong. Overall, I very much liked the video (probably even 99% of it). I may even have been wrong about the EF/OF stuff and I may have made too much of his using himself as an example. But even if he is right, and you are right, in that the laity are morally allowed to disobey a priest in this regard, it is not his place - or yours (unless you're really a priest yourself) - to be telling people to do that, or even that they can do that. Disobedience of a priest, even in matters where it's morally licit, is not a matter to be taken lightly.

About pride - I don't think accusing someone of pride is as big an issue as you think it is. Pride is said to be the root of all sin. We are all sinners. Therefore, we all have some sinful pride within us. If A & B, then C.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343821197' post='2461032']
Did I miss something? Did someone make the argument that receiving on the tongue while kneeling is forbidden? If so, he is wrong. Let's move on.

My understanding is: Receiving on the tongue and in the hand are allowed. Receiving while kneeling and standing are allowed. We are directed to bow before receiving. I don't believe genuflecting before receiving is discouraged.


I receive on the tongue b/c I don't want to hold the Body of Christ in my hand and minister to myself. I genuflect before receiving. I do so b/c it hit me one day that if I am to genuflect before the tabernacle, then it makes to genuflect before the Body of Christ I am receiving that is right in front of me.

[i]This post is not directed at any one person.[/i]
[/quote]

Someone did say in effect that if a priest requires the faithful to receive in the hand, those that would 'disobey' that requirement of the priest and wish to receive on the tongue are disobedient. Topsy turvy logic, such a priest would be disobedient, not the laity who do not submit to such an disobedient request that breaks Church law.

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343829898' post='2461054']
Someone did say in effect that if a priest requires the faithful to receive in the hand, those that would 'disobey' that requirement of the priest and wish to receive on the tongue are disobedient. Topsy turvy logic, such a priest would be disobedient, not the laity who do not submit to such an disobedient request that breaks Church law.
[/quote]

I agree. I do not believe a priest has the authority to make that requirement. Therefore, it is not binding in regards to disobedience if the laity do not comply.