Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed?

[fides' Jack]

Again, guys - if it's not sinful, we're required to obey - correct? The priest's own act of obedience or disobedience has no bearing on ours.

Still, no one is saying that receiving on the tongue or while kneeling is forbidden. I'm sure a [i]lot[/i] of people on this site would prefer it that way.

[Papist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343831152' post='2461058']
Again, guys - [b]if it's not sinful, we're required to obey[/b] - correct? The priest's own act of obedience or disobedience has no bearing on ours.

Still, no one is saying that receiving on the tongue or while kneeling is forbidden. I'm sure a [i]lot[/i] of people on this site would prefer it that way.
[/quote]

It would be sinful to disobey the priest's directive for the wrong reason(e.g. out of spite), but not out of obeying your conscience. I would comply b/c I desire the Eucharist above all and don't want to cause a disruption. I believe the priest here is in serious jeopardy. By denying me to receive on the tongue, which is a valid form to receive, I would probably have sinful thoughts about that priest.

[mortify]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343831152' post='2461058']
Again, guys - if it's not sinful, we're required to obey - correct? The priest's own act of obedience or disobedience has no bearing on ours
[/quote]

I think the laity need to be more bold. The West comes from a tradition were the laity were less cultivated and therefore more dependent on those above them. That's why in the early days the Priest said the mass while the people, acting basically as spectators, sat and prayed their rosaries. Those times are long gone, and if a priest does something that explicitly contradicts what the Magesterium has proclaimed, we have a right if not a duty to correct him, otherwise we will be stuck in the liturgical disaster we are in forever. Anyone else agree?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343826799' post='2461039']
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.[/quote]

The norm in the US is not a sin but it does not trump the actual universal norm. The right to receive on the tongue while kneeling is a universal right under Church Law. If a bishop or priest denies this right it is they who are disobedient to the Church, not the faithful who choose to receive on the tongue while kneeling.


[quote]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.[/quote]

I've seen penalty of OF parishes with Pre-Vatican II altars. On the sense of the intentions? What does that even really mean? How is that even objective? The whole bases of your judgement of pride for this man now lays on the sense of intentions. That's a big problemo.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Then I'll accuse you of simple ignorance, you don't know what you're talking about. A priest cannot break Church law and make his opinion higher than the Church. A priest that would deny the faithful the right to receive on the tongue is the disobedient one not the members of the faithful who despite his unjust requirement presented themselves for communion by requesting to receive on the tongue while kneeling. I don't agree with your judgements of the faithful at EF parishes in whatever way you wish to shape it, and they also have nothing to do with the guy in the video. So there was no point in bringing them into this conversion at all.

[quote]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.[/quote]

On account that you've been so wrong about everything else it is also likely that your person perception is also flawed.




[quote]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.[/quote]

Again you're wrong. I can tell others that priests do not have a right to deny the faithful the right to receive on the tongue while kneeling, and since it is their right they have a right to always present themselves to receive that way even if the priest unjustly forbids them.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

I think it certainly is when you've been as wrong as you have.

[Papist]

I don't believe it is prudent for me to instruct someone to directly not comply to a priest's directive, even if I choose to not comply. I would explain the reasoning for my non-compliance, then ask him to ask his priest why the directive.

[mortify]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343833920' post='2461074']
I don't believe it is prudent for me to instruct someone to directly not comply to a priest's directive, even if I choose to not comply. I would explain the reasoning for my non-compliance, then ask him to ask his priest why the directive.
[/quote]

70% of Catholics in the United States no longer believe in the Real Presence. We're in a crisis here, in the past the Church would have called an Ecumenical Council. We can't be so timid anymore.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343833920' post='2461074']
I don't believe it is prudent for me to instruct someone to directly not comply to a priest's directive, even if I choose to not comply. I would explain the reasoning for my non-compliance, then ask him to ask his priest why the directive.
[/quote]

I believe it is prudent and even necessary to inform those that would other wise not know that the priest doesn't have a right to forbid them from receiving on the tongue while kneeling and that they by Church law can present themselves that way if they so choose.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343832408' post='2461063']
The norm in the US is not a sin but it does not trump the actual universal norm. The right to receive on the tongue while kneeling is a universal right under Church Law. If a bishop or priest denies this right it is they who are disobedient to the Church, not the faithful who choose to receive on the tongue while kneeling.




I've seen penalty of OF parishes with Pre-Vatican II altars. On the sense of the intentions? What does that even really mean? How is that even objective? The whole bases of your judgement of pride for this man now lays on the sense of intentions. That's a big problemo.



Then I'll accuse you of simple ignorance, you don't know what you're talking about. A priest cannot break Church law and make his opinion higher than the Church. A priest that would deny the faithful the right to receive on the tongue is the disobedient one not the members of the faithful who despite his unjust requirement presented themselves for communion by requesting to receive on the tongue while kneeling. I don't agree with your judgements of the faithful at EF parishes in whatever way you wish to shape it, and they also have nothing to do with the guy in the video. So there was no point in bringing them into this conversion at all.



On account that you've been so wrong about everything else it is also likely that your person perception is also flawed.






Again you're wrong. I can tell others that priests do not have a right to deny the faithful the right to receive on the tongue while kneeling, and since it is their right they have a right to always present themselves to receive that way even if the priest unjustly forbids them.



I think it certainly is when you've been as wrong as you have.
[/quote]

I admit that I may be wrong, but you haven't answered the most basic question that I've asked several times: are we required to obey when not sinful? Yes or no. Stop tip-toeing around the subject. If yes, then we are required to obey the priest, even when he's wrong. If no, then you're right, but I'll ask you to give evidence of that position. Merely saying that "the priest is the disobedient one not us", which is grammatically incorrect, is a position, or a personal opinion - not an argument. Give me [i]reasons[/i]. That's what I'm looking for.

I did NOT base my accusation of his pride on "the sense of intentions". If you look at my original post, I said that the proof was in his calling people to be disobedient (#1, not #2, above).

So your argument, then, is that if people have the canonical right to do something, then any and all obligations to humble obedience (directing them to the contrary, when the contrary is not morally wrong) fly out the window? Is that really what I'm hearing from you? If that's true, then I admit my "simple" ignorance. If not, it's showing yours.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343832188' post='2461061']
It would be sinful to disobey the priest's directive for the wrong reason(e.g. out of spite), but not out of obeying your conscience. I would comply b/c I desire the Eucharist above all and don't want to cause a disruption. I believe the priest here is in serious jeopardy. By denying me to receive on the tongue, which is a valid form to receive, I would probably have sinful thoughts about that priest.
[/quote]

But, as with KoC, I'm looking for a yes or no. Is it sinful for us to disobey a priest when obeying his command is not sinful?

I agree that the priest is wrong. Even that he might be in serious jeopardy.

Yes? No?

[KnightofChrist]

Since when was it not sinful to break Church law and to place one's own opinion over Church law?

[quote] Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.

Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. [b]Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only in the hands are acting against the norms[/b], as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.
With attention to the norms concerning the distribution of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary ministers should take care in a particular way that the host is consumed at once by Christ’s faithful, so that no one goes away with the eucharistic species in his hand.
However, let all remember that the time-honored tradition is to receive the host on the tongue. The celebrant priest, if there is a present danger of sacrilege, should not give the faithful communion in the hand, and he should make them aware of the reason for the way of proceeding.

-- Notitiae, Congregation for Divine Worship, April 1999 Source: [url="http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-i-receive-on-the-tongue"]http://www.catholic....e-on-the-tongue[/url]

Source 2: http://relevantradio.com/dailyquestions/communion-in-the-han[/quote]

Edited August 1, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343835681' post='2461087']
But, as with KoC, I'm looking for a yes or no. Is it sinful for us to disobey a priest when obeying his command is not sinful?

I agree that the priest is wrong. Even that he might be in serious jeopardy.

Yes? No?
[/quote]

No, it is not. And I have shown proof of this, communion on the tongue while kneeling is a universal right. Being that it is a universal right is not sinful to do even if a priest says one cannot.

[Papist]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1343834054' post='2461075']
70% of Catholics in the United States no longer believe in the Real Presence. We're in a crisis here, in the past the Church would have called an Ecumenical Council. We can't be so timid anymore.
[/quote]

I don't see how telling people what to do helps this crisis. We need to inform these people on what the Church teachings are.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343834243' post='2461078']
I believe it is prudent and even necessary to inform those that would other wise not know that the priest doesn't have a right to forbid them from receiving on the tongue while kneeling and that they by Church law can present themselves that way if they so choose.
[/quote]

Yes. Inform them so they can make a decision on their volition. Not instruct to disobey. That is something the person needs to decide for himself. I will do my part to help him inform his conscience, but I will not tell him what to do....unless it is my child.

[Papist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343835681' post='2461087']
But, as with KoC, I'm looking for a yes or no. Is it sinful for us to disobey a priest when obeying his command is not sinful?

I agree that the priest is wrong. Even that he might be in serious jeopardy.

Yes? No?
[/quote]

I am inclined to say no.

My priest said I must only chew grape bubblegum. I disobey him by chewing cherry bubblegum. Is it sinful for me to disobey my priest's command that is not sinful?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343836675' post='2461093']
I don't see how telling people what to do helps this crisis. We need to inform these people on what the Church teachings are.



Yes. Inform them so they can make a decision on their volition. Not instruct to disobey. That is something the person needs to decide for himself. I will do my part to help him inform his conscience, but I will not tell him what to do....unless it is my child.
[/quote]

But it isn't disobedience, not to the Church not to truth, the priest never has the right to require anyone to obey his personal opinion that is trumped by Church law. I would still advise those who wish to use their right to receive on the tongue while kneeling to do so no matter the personal opinion of the priest. Church law trumps a priest's unjust opinion. It is not disobedience in the true sense to obey the Church rather than the priest who is acting against the norms of the Church.

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343837198' post='2461096']
But it isn't disobedience, not to the Church not to truth, the priest never has the right to require anyone to obey his personal opinion that is trumped by Church law. I would still advise those who wish to use their right to receive on the tongue while kneeling to do so no matter the personal opinion of the priest. Church law trumps a priest's unjust opinion. It is not disobedience in the true sense to obey the Church rather than the priest who is acting against the norms of the Church.
[/quote]

I agree with all what you are saying regarding dealing with the priest. Seems very clear to me. My argument is regarding the [u]telling[/u] someone to out right disobey his priest. I don't believe that is the best and prudent thing to do. I believe it more prudent and more helpful to the person going forward if you explain Church teachings and why/how you made the choice you did. However, it is our obligation to bring to light the priest's error to his pastor, then bishop, etc.