An Answer For Dust

[dUSt]

Look I take the Eucharist in my mouth. But some of the holiest ppl I know take it by hand. Your right dust let the church decide if Jesus would really care...The church has decided and they said both forms are acceptable according to the GIRM...Ive had older people come up to some of my friends and tell them that they are inappropriate becuz they take the eucharist in their hands. That is just stupid. Worry about your own reverance towards the eucharist when it comes to matters like this. Taking the eucharist in the hand and comparing that to dipping it in choclate milk are two completely different things. Im not saying those who take eucharist by mouth are trying to look pius. I take it by mouth and bow before every time i receive for my personal reasons and i leave it at that. I dont tell other ppl what is ok and not ok to do when it comes to things that even Rome says are ok to do. No disrespect meant dust we might just disagree on this one.

I don't think we disagree. I think taking communion by hand his perfectly acceptable until the Church tells us otherwise. Right now, it's an approved method of receiving. I have no problem with it.

My only concern was that you seemed to place little importance on the issue. We might, in fcat, disagree in that regard, as I think the method in which we receive God is extremely important. I hope that I'm just misunderstanding your point.

God bless.

[Good Friday]

However, a calamitous error of judgement then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice "has already developed in any place" a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase "has already developed" meant by that date, 28 May, 1969.

Emphasis mine on the above quote. Donna, I don't think it's for Michael Davies to decide when the Vatican has made "a calamitous error of judgement." I receive the Eucharist in the hand, and that's not because I feel that it's not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. I do it because that's the norm in the United States, approved by an indult.

I'm not saying people shouldn't receive on the tongue. But I'm saying there is nothing wrong with receiving in the hand here in the United States, since we have Vatican approval. Receiving on the hand vs. receiving on the tongue is a matter of discipline, and the Vatican can change discipline as it sees fit. It has seen fit to change discipline in the United States by permitting us to receive in the hand.

[Winchester]

I want Altar rails back.

[vianney]

I totally agree with you Dust. I think the way we receinve Jesus Christ in body is very important. What I was questioning and laughing about was the argument hand vs tongue is kinda foolish because the vatican approves both so why would it matter which we choose, especially to Jesus. Thats all, I just dont want ppl who receive it by hand to think that those who receive it by tongue are are being pius and vice versa for those who happen to receive it by tongue vs hand. Have you ever read the book "Eucharistic Miracles" Ne one who reads that book would understand how important and reverant the sacrament of the Eucharist is, i just think the agrument of hand vs tongue is irrelevant. But when it comes to disrespecting the eucharist then that is another subject i cant imagine ne catholic would disrespect the eucharist. As saint benedict says, "Even the angels bow down in adoration before humans as they receive christ." Think about that, that is pretty cool.

Your humble servant in christ jesus

Vianney

[Donna]

Wow. It is humbling to see these posts. You all love our Lord very much. Pray for me...

Nathan, I agree re: the "calamitous" remark. Michael Davies, a layman, has not the authority to judge as would a religious superior. But he is entitled to his opinion.

Jonie, again, great questions. I'll take the second one first. Bear with me if I'm quoting at length. dUSt is right, there are extremely important matters all sort of linked together concerning this.

Jonie's 2nd question paraphrased: Why does it matter in what way we receive?

Again, from Pope Paul's New Mass:

The Protestant Reformation

Unless we are to conclude that the Holy Ghost had abandoned the Church, it can be presumed that the transition from the reception of Communion in the hand to Its reception on the tongue was the result of divine guidance, a true liturgical development. The Instruction Memoriale Domini... explains that:

After the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence towards this holy sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread upon the tongue of the communicant.

The Protestant Reformers denied that the Eucharistic consecration changes the bread and wine in any way at all beyond giving them a new signification [they become symbols of Christ's Body and Blood -Donna]. Christ is in heaven and nowhere else, they taught, and to offer adoration to the bread and wine ("bread-worship") constitues idolatry. (pages 462-63).

[The following are exceprts from pages 463-65 -Donna]

"Martin Bucer expressed the Protestant consensus [save for the Lutherans] in his Censura, a criticism of the 1549 [Anglican] prayer book designed to secure the removal of any prayers or ceremonies which could be taken to imply a Catholic belief in the Real Presence or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...

People should therefore be taught that the Lord Christ is not offered in bread and wine but in godly minds, by means of his words and these symbols; and therefore bread and wine, even if it has been placed on the Lord's table, is no more holy apart from its use in the communion which the Lord instituted than any other bread and wine.

"Cranmer [Apostate bishop in England and heading the liturgical reform after England 's schism from the Catholic Church] duly complied with Bucer's demands and incorporated the practice of Communion in the hand in his 1552 Prayer Book. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting upon the change are unambiguous:

I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness that that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration [Holy Orders].

"It will be noted that the consecration of the priest's hands is seen as indicating the privilege of handling the Host... The fact that the Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence invested the practice with an anti-Catholic signification from that time onwards. This was a signification it did not possess in the early centuries."

Edited July 16, 2003 by Donna

[Good Friday]

May Christ dwell in you, Donna.

I may not receive the Eucharist in my hand anymore, because of its association with the denial of the Real Presence... but this is just my personal choice, I'm not saying it's wrong, because the Church has approved receiving the Eucharist in one's hand. Anyway, I have a couple of questions though.

1. How does one go about receiving on the tongue? Is there some way you're supposed to let the priest know you'll be receiving on the tongue, since he's so used to people receiving by hand nowadays? I don't want Father to think I'm sticking my tongue out at him while in the Communion line. I just became Catholic in April, and haven't been catechized at all about receiving on the tongue -- it was pretty much assumed I would receive the Eucharist in the hand.

2. Does one take the chalice into one's hand, or does the priest (or in my unfortunate case, the Eucharistic minister) put the chalice to my lips? And if it is the latter, what do you think the chances are that the Eucharistic minister at my parish would know to do that? (At my parish, the priest and a Eucharistic minister distribute Our Lord's Body -- in two separate lines, one to the priest and the other to the EM, I always get in the priest's line -- and Eucharistic Ministers distribute the Precious Blood... unfortunately, since there is no need for three Eucharistic ministers, or even one).

Thanks for any help you can give me.

[dUSt]

1. After saying "amen" (while looking at the priest), open your mouth and place your tongue on your bottom lip. If the priest doesn't know what you're doing, he shouldn't be a priest.

2. After saying "amen", you take the chalice, take a sip, and then give the chalice back.

[dUSt]

Donna,

I'd hate to think you are trying to avoid answering a question directly--or maybe you just missed it?

Where it is approved, do you believe that it is wrong for a person who prefers to recieve Holy Communion in the hands to do so?

[cmotherofpirl]

Wow. It is humbling to see these posts. You all love our Lord very much. Pray for me...

Nathan, I agree re: the "calamitous" remark. Michael Davies, a layman, has not the authority to judge as would a religious superior. But he is entitled to his opinion.

Jonie, again, great questions. I'll take the second one first. Bear with me if I'm quoting at length. dUSt is right, there are extremely important matters all sort of linked together concerning this. 

Jonie's  2nd question paraphrased: Why does it matter in what way we receive?

Again, from Pope Paul's New Mass:

The Protestant Reformation

Unless we are to conclude that the Holy Ghost had abandoned the Church, it can be presumed that the transition from the reception of Communion in the hand to Its reception on the tongue was the result of divine guidance, a true liturgical development. The Instruction Memoriale Domini... explains that:

After the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence towards this holy sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread upon the tongue of the communicant.

The Protestant Reformers denied that the Eucharistic consecration changes the bread and wine in any way at all beyond giving them a new signification [they become symbols of Christ's Body and Blood -Donna]. Christ is in heaven and nowhere else, they taught, and to offer adoration to the bread and wine ("bread-worship") constitues idolatry.  (pages 462-63).

[The following are exceprts from pages 463-65 -Donna]

"Martin Bucer expressed the Protestant consensus [save for the Lutherans] in his Censura, a criticism of the 1549 [Anglican] prayer book designed to secure the removal of any prayers or ceremonies which could be taken to imply a Catholic belief in the Real Presence or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...

People should therefore be taught that the Lord Christ is not offered in bread and wine but in godly minds, by means of his words and these symbols; and therefore bread and wine, even if it has been placed on the Lord's table, is no more holy apart from its use in the communion which the Lord instituted than any other bread and wine.

"Cranmer [Apostate bishop in England and heading the liturgical reform after England 's schism from the Catholic Church] duly complied with Bucer's demands and incorporated the practice of Communion in the hand in his 1552 Prayer Book. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting upon the change are unambiguous:

I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness that that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration [Holy Orders].

"It will be noted that the consecration of the priest's hands is seen as indicating the privilege of handling the Host... The fact that the Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence invested the practice with an anti-Catholic signification from that time onwards. This was a signification it did not possess in the early centuries."

Michael Davies has no standing in the Church, he has long gone the way of the schism.

If the Church says Communion in the hand is acceptable, then it is.

Doesn't anybody read good CATHOLIC literature anymore.

[IcePrincessKRS]

. How does one go about receiving on the tongue? Is there some way you're supposed to let the priest know you'll be receiving on the tongue, since he's so used to people receiving by hand nowadays? I don't want Father to think I'm sticking my tongue out at him while in the Communion line.  I just became Catholic in April, and haven't been catechized at all about receiving on the tongue -- it was pretty much assumed I would receive the Eucharist in the hand.

I don't know for sure exactly how one is "supposed" to go about receiving the Precious Blood from the chalice--whether or not we are supposed to take the chalice or have it helf for us. But, receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, I'm an expert at. (I've been doin' it since I was 7, one would hope I'd have the hang of it by now.) Basically--and forgive the odd description, but its the best comparison I can think of at the moment--you open your mouth wide and stick out your tongue, similar to the way you would when the doctor is looking at your throat with a tongue depressor (that way the priest doesn't have to stick his fingers inside your mouth, he just places the Host on the tongue). You keep your hands folded in front of you, that way there's no mistaking that you want to receive in your mouth rather than in your hands.

Wow... I feel so intelligent for that description. ....Ok, not really....

[God Conquers]

If the Church says it's OK, then it's OK. Problem solved, the Church can't be wrong on this issue. If it was that would mean there is error in heaven and error in God. That is impossible by definition, so we would all cease to exist. Obviously it's OK. No one has been smited (is that how you spell it?) and you're not going to hell for recieving in the hand vs. on the tongue.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Lest anyone think that I made my decision based on this thread, I had made the decision to never take the Eucharist in the hand previously some time ago.

I believe it's a personal preference.

What I don't get are the priests that I've read about (I believe somewhere here on this board once) that are supposedly not giving the Eucharist to persons who do not want to receive it in the hand. Does anyone have more information on that?

[Donna]

Answer to Jonie's 2nd question, "How did it (Communion in the hand) become the norm"?

In Memoriale Domini, it was stated that where the abuse [Cmom, I am sorry: it was an abuse] has been developed (by 1969) a 2/3's majority of the Bishops' conference of said country could petition the Holy See for approval.

According to Pope Paul's New Mass (the 'Communion in the Hand' chapter), th US Bishops conference addressed this issue in 1977. One bishop Blanchette (Joilet, Illinois) is quoted as saying that before petitioning the Holy See, first should be found out whether or not the contrary usage (Communion in the hand) was already established in US dioceses. Apparently his motion was tabled, and it was not established whether contrary usage had already been developed here. I won't go on, but there is more.

So, it became the norm because the Holy See let it become the norm.

[Donna]

dUSt, thanks for your patience.

If the Holy See approved Communion in the Hand, then, no, I would not say it is illegal to receive that way. But I have questions as to whether it was wrongly imposed.

[Donna]

Cmom: you won't believe this, but Michael Davies has actually become a lot less... traditional let's say, over the years.

See, this is what I meant about the term 'schism' being loosely thrown around. Michael Davies is the President of Una Voce International. He meets or is in contact w/ the Ecclesia Dei orders, and I'm sure is no stranger to Roman/Vatican authorites and their offices. There are few more "approved" renagade leaders in the "traditional movement" than he.

His trilogy does contain opinion, but also facts.

Godd bless.