Socrates Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Personally, I think EMs should be done away with in the Liturgy, and the norm should be receiving on the tongue and kneeling. We get rid of all these external signs of reverance for the Eucharist, and then wonder that most Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 8 2005, 07:36 PM'] I think it is noble that you receive on the tongue. There is certianly nothing wrong with it, but both forms have been approved, and neither is inferior to the other. The EM's can also be an abuse, but it is one that the Church is working on. You can always help by being part of the solution, write polite letters to your priest about how you feel, and pray often about it. EM's are also approved in the Church, so long as they are used according to the guidelines that the Church approves. Not receiving the blood just because it is an EM is probably not a good reason to refuse to receive. [/quote] If it was good enough for Catholics to 'only' receive the Body for 500 years, that hasn't changed. It's misleading to say the Body and Blood are separate. You receive the whole Body and Blood from 'just' the Body. There's no need to distribute the Blood. It's unnecessary. And the practice creates the majority of the EM's. At my parish, fully 4 EMs or more distribute the Blood. What a mess! With respect to Eastern Catholics, who use intinction (which works marvelous well), Communion under both species is not necessary for the lay person in the Latin Rite and I don't feel the need to support it. I've gotten past the stage where I refused to receive Communion at all from an EM...that's good right? Of course, if I'm wrong you will please correct me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It is not a matter of being 'good enough'. The earliest historical practices of receiving that we know of are receiving in the hands. And those Christians were the closest to the Apostles and thus the closest to Christ himself. The practice of receiving on the tongue only, is just that, a practice. It can change and has been changed by the Church. It is now acceptable to receive on the hand. A letter had to be written to inform priests that they could not refuse someone who would kneel to receive. A clear sign that this is not the proposed norm in the Church for today. As much as I understand the strong dislike of EM's, because an EM is a change in the liturgy, which any change at all is never received well, such practices were put in place for good reason. In some American dioceses there is one single priest for an entire county of Catholics (You can find such in Texas and Utah). There is no reasonable way for the priest to be at every church in the county on Sunday giving communion to every recieptant. There has on the other hand been a misuse of EM's, but this does not mean that it is in any way illicet to receive from an EM, even if there really is no need to have them at any particular service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Regarding the proposal that the substance of both body and blood are in both the bread and wine is absolutely right. You do not have to receive the blood if your preference is not to. It is however in no way wrong to receive the blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 oh I'm not denying the validity of receiving in the hand. That's fine and just not my preference, for matters of personal focus. My main issue is the practice of distributing the Blood at Communion, because from what I understand the whole Body and Blood is contained within the host. This and my experience with the Tridentine Mass have led me to refrain from what I see as receiving Communion twice. It's not illicit of course, but just something I don't feel the need to do. Also like I said, it makes more EM's. Why is it that we receive both species now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 That's a great questions! The following is from the General Instruction on the Roman Missal: "The sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly. The intention of Christ that the new and eternal covenant be ratified in his blood is better expressed, as is the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the heavenly banquet." Remember that Christ says that we are to take and both "eat his flesh and drink his blood". With the bread there is the action of eating, and with the blood there is the action of drinking. New Advent also has a great article you might look up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 8 2005, 08:22 PM'] As much as I understand the strong dislike of EM's, because an EM is a change in the liturgy, which any change at all is never received well, such practices were put in place for good reason. In some American dioceses there is one single priest for an entire county of Catholics (You can find such in Texas and Utah). There is no reasonable way for the priest to be at every church in the county on Sunday giving communion to every recieptant. [/quote] This is the reason for having EM's (for extreme situations where the priest is unable to bring the Eucharist to all the parishioners.) There is no need to have them standing around distributing Communion at every Sunday Mass. EM has become a position for old "church ladies" who now feel handling the Eucharist is their God-given right. Our associate pastor tried to get rid of EMs in his Masses, but ran into too much opposition from those involved. And Bro. Adam, what do you have against kneeling to receive (other than that the bishops have decided they don't like this)? Do you think this was a wise decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Blessed by the Bread of Angels! I am an "Apostolic Acolyte (sp?)"...meaning I have served for the Archbishop...Wow what an experience. I love seeing the reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament that Christ deserves. I also love it when the priest not only pruify the vesels, but also their fingers...because no matter how small the particle, He is still Jesus. But ever since I received First Holy Communion (1 year and 8 days ago) I have received Holy Communion on the tounge. This is from the Summa Theologiae...I found it interesting. "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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." -St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3 Totus Tuus, Andrew Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiat_Voluntas_Tua Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 [quote]And Bro. Adam, what do you have against kneeling to receive (other than that the bishops have decided they don't like this)? Do you think this was a wise decision? [/quote] I kneel to receive ONLY when I am serving. It is the Norm for the US (I believe someone already said this) to make a sign of reverence (bow, genuflect) before receiving Holy Communion while standing. Totus Tuus, Andrew Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 8 2005, 09:40 PM'] This is the reason for having EM's (for extreme situations where the priest is unable to bring the Eucharist to all the parishioners.) There is no need to have them standing around distributing Communion at every Sunday Mass. EM has become a position for old "church ladies" who now feel handling the Eucharist is their God-given right. Our associate pastor tried to get rid of EMs in his Masses, but ran into too much opposition from those involved. And Bro. Adam, what do you have against kneeling to receive (other than that the bishops have decided they don't like this)? Do you think this was a wise decision? [/quote] Well, my priest offered me this consolation: the people who are messing things up are of an older generation, and they are entering their last years. They won't be around forever and as they go home we will be left in leadership positions. Then when we are old we can make sure the Church is run without extraneous garbage like overuse of EM's, simply by having many kids and encouraging at least one to be a priest. If the kids of phatmass all got onto parish councils, why, we'd be set! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Yes, therein lies hope. Followers of Gabriel Moran and Thomas Groome are dying out and they do not have people to take their place. You can expect major changes in catechesis in the next five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now