Communion In The Hand

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168245' date='Jan 17 2007, 02:39 PM']
I've looked into it and it appears that she really did say that.

Rather than flipping out and calling Mother Teresa stupid I think people should at least try to understand where she was coming from. I for one pretty much agree with Mother Teresa. If this scandalizes people then maybe they need to be scandalized. Millions of us are scandalized by the pseudo-Catholicism that is cheaply pawned off in today's world.
[/quote]
Last I checked this is a bogus quote. She DID say abortion was the worst thing in the world.

However, if she did or didn't it really doesn't matter, she has the right to her own personal opinion, saints are not saints because we consider them infallible. The Church has ruled Communion in the hand perfctly acceptable, it is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. Communion in the hand was present in the early Church.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168237' date='Jan 17 2007, 02:36 PM']
Actually I find it to be a superficial and crude viewpoint. They aren't the first person to allude to the obvious fact that "[i]the plain act of Communion on the hand is not in itself wrong, or heretical, or any such thing[/i]" (see page 1). The real issues at stake go far beyond such an observation.

These sorts of statements: "the hand is nothing but muscle, bone, ligament, and skin, while the tongue is all muscle. It's not the physical vessel that's important, but the spirit, the 'heart', the attitude" are so generic and tiresome. There is no doubt an interior priority, but to imply that the physical doesn't matter is pretty gnostic.

Especially in the context of Liturgy where outward signs manifest and express the invisible mysteries. *shakes head*

Honestly, this entire line of discussion is meaningless to me since the real issues, somewhat indicated in previous posts, are of an entirely different character. To me the typical responses made by supporters of such things as Communion on the hand just reveal the extent to which the hijacking of the Church has succeeded.
This is pretty interesting:
[/quote]

At least give me credit for taking part in this discussion in a good faith manner. I'm open to correction. However, I don't appreciate being told that my viewpoint is "superficial and crude." You make some good points, but FWIW it's hard for me to get past essentially being called names.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]MEMORIALE DOMINI (Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion)[/b]
"Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which 'in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.' Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: 'What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.'" - [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM[/url][/quote]In my first post on this topic I quoted the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship whom stated very clearly that it is more pious and reverent to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, which they define not to be on the hand. Therefore, one cannot in good faith reject the intellectual understanding of the Congregation for Divine Worship without violating the Code of Canon Law or at least declaring you are clearer than theses Bishops who devoted their lives to understand this theology.[quote][b]Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite[/b]
[b]Can. 752[/b] Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

[b]Can. 753[/b] Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

[b]Can. 754[/b] All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM[/url][/quote] Concerning what the worst thing in the world is, this is a rather relative topic. If we are speaking of the mass murder of innocent children in the womb or the lack of belief in the faithful of God, either can be considered horrific but admittedly how we rank them all revolves around how we understand the evils to interact. The question we must ask ourselves is “does the loss of this reverence promote or have Catholics feel like they may make their own subjective judgments on religion and morality”? But again I think we could come to many different conclusions on this topic.

But we ought to not quiver over what the worst evil is but rather combat evil at all times, it is apart of being in spiritual warfare. Therefore, we ought not to difference ourselves in permitting lesser evils because there are greater evils afoot. Using this same concept wouldn’t it make sense to a teenager to tell their parents “dude, there’s abortion afoot, its not like this is really bad.” We need to be vigilant as our Blessed Lord commanded for we know neither the day nor the hour thus must constantly be preparing ourselves.

The well known Bayside Apparitions (Our Lady of the Roses) has been two times condemned solemnly by the Holy Catholic Church; Catholic Faithful are therefore to avoid such apparitions and such people whom advocate it as Canon Law suggests.[quote]The Bayside Movement Condemned both by the Congregation for Divine Faith on June 14, 1966 and then again by John Mugavero, Bishop of Brooklyn, on November 4, 1986.

[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005.htm"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005a.htm"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/appar005a.htm[/url][/quote]The Church in her more recent documents have spoken about the use of “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” almost naming them as an abuse laying down strict regulation, of which so far in the United States have appeared to be ignored.[quote][b]Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
"Redemptionis Sacramentum"
(On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)[/b]
Friday, April 23, 2004

[b]146[/b]. There can be no substitute whatsoever for the ministerial Priesthood. For if a Priest is lacking in the community, then the community lacks the exercise and sacramental function of Christ the Head and Shepherd, which belongs to the essence of its very life. For “the only minister who can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.

[b]151[/b]. Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.

[b]154[/b]. As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[b]156[/b]. This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[b]157[/b]. If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

[b]158[/b]. Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...amentum_en.html[/url][/quote]While Holy Communion in the hand is “permitted” by the Church it is not in of it self a right, for at any time the Local Bishop, the Conference of Bishops, the Congregation for Divine Worship, or the Pope decided to retract their approval (namely the pope) it would be no longer permitted. For the Church has many times reiterated that Holy Communion.[quote]Letter from the Vatican - EWTN Answer
This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received your letter dated December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "... while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneeling_for_communion.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/kneelin...r_communion.htm[/url][/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1168283' date='Jan 17 2007, 03:36 PM']
At least give me credit for taking part in this discussion in a good faith manner. I'm open to correction. However, I don't appreciate being told that my viewpoint is "superficial and crude." You make some good points, but FWIW it's hard for me to get past essentially being called names.
[/quote]
totally. my thing was directed at the arguments, not you as a person. I make crude arguments all the time. Sorry for being so bombastic, I do appreciate your central point btw.

[N/A Gone]

If the church says it is ok, and it is the church that was put in charge to lead and protect us. Then why are we complaining? If we in the church have been raised receiving on the tongue, or in the hand. Is not the important thing to focus on our receiving? Any argument that is presented can be presented from the other side. We sound divisive, we sound like sheep angry at the shepherd. I am not proud by this thread

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1168270' date='Jan 17 2007, 03:21 PM']
Last I checked this is a bogus quote. She DID say abortion was the worst thing in the world.

However, if she did or didn't it really doesn't matter, she has the right to her own personal opinion, saints are not saints because we consider them infallible. The Church has ruled Communion in the hand perfctly acceptable, it is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. Communion in the hand was present in the early Church.
[/quote]

Off topic question about her real quick. Has your guys' church canonized her yet? Just wondering.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1168270' date='Jan 17 2007, 03:21 PM']
Last I checked this is a bogus quote. She DID say abortion was the worst thing in the world.

However, if she did or didn't it really doesn't matter, she has the right to her own personal opinion, saints are not saints because we consider them infallible. The Church has ruled Communion in the hand perfctly acceptable, it is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. Communion in the hand was present in the early Church.
[/quote]
Fr. George Rutler apparently testifies to the Mother Teresa quote and at this point I have more reason to believe in it than to doubt it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168340' date='Jan 17 2007, 05:08 PM']
Fr. George Rutler apparently testifies to the Mother Teresa quote and at this point I have more reason to believe in it than to doubt it.
[/quote]
Either way it doesn't matter.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1168354' date='Jan 17 2007, 05:35 PM']
Either way it doesn't matter.
[/quote]
It matters to me because I don't think Mother Teresa would say something like that if it wasn't something worth thinking about at least.

[Romans1513]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I thought I might add my 2 cents for whatever its worth...

I think what Mother Teresa was trying to say is simply that there is not enough respect given to the Eucharist, and I think it is very valid to say that that is a big problem in the world today.

For the record, I do not take Communion in the hand anymore, but I did up until about 4 or 5 months ago. For me, it reminds me to focus more on the absolute AMAZINGness of what I am able to receive. (among other reasons for doing so)

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1168664' date='Jan 17 2007, 09:04 PM']
I didn't read this entire thread, but I thought I might add my 2 cents for whatever its worth...

I think what Mother Teresa was trying to say is simply that there is not enough respect given to the Eucharist, and I think it is very valid to say that that is a big problem in the world today.

For the record, I do not take Communion in the hand anymore, but I did up until about 4 or 5 months ago. For me, it reminds me to focus more on the absolute AMAZINGness of what I am able to receive. (among other reasons for doing so)
[/quote]
I tend to agree. My problem is not with Communion on the hand in itself, but in connection with the general banality and profanity of mainstream Catholic culture.

I would assume that Mother Teresa's perspective was primarily spiritual. If you consider the Church to be the ark of salvation in the world, and the Eucharist to be the source and summit of the Christian life, it makes more sense that a pandemic of Eucharist profanation might constitute the most saddening state of affairs in the world. It is a perspective of spiritual realities and grace, not of worldly concerns and wholly temporal conditions.

And again, the tendency in many countries to promote hand reception above the univeral norm becomes a kind of outward sign of the satanic attack on Eucharistic awareness and devotion.

It must be made clear that this is not to be misconstrued as an attack on individuals who receive on the hand. Certainly it is quite licit to receive on the hand in dioceses where the Bishop has approved the practice in accord with the indult, and it is certainly true that hand reception does not by nature imply that the communicant has less devotion than the tongue communicant.

[philosophette]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168237' date='Jan 17 2007, 01:36 PM']
Actually I find it to be a superficial and crude viewpoint. They aren't the first person to allude to the obvious fact that "[i]the plain act of Communion on the hand is not in itself wrong, or heretical, or any such thing[/i]" (see page 1). The real issues at stake go far beyond such an observation.

These sorts of statements: "the hand is nothing but muscle, bone, ligament, and skin, while the tongue is all muscle. It's not the physical vessel that's important, but the spirit, the 'heart', the attitude" are so generic and tiresome. There is no doubt an interior priority, but to imply that the physical doesn't matter is pretty gnostic.

Especially in the context of Liturgy where outward signs manifest and express the invisible mysteries. *shakes head*

Honestly, this entire line of discussion is meaningless to me since the real issues, somewhat indicated in previous posts, are of an entirely different character. To me the typical responses made by supporters of such things as Communion on the hand just reveal the extent to which the hijacking of the Church has succeeded.
This is pretty interesting:
[/quote]


My big issue with those who make are so fixated with the WAY in which we recieve the Eucharist, when the disposition of piety is there, is that they try to make God so untouchable and distant from his people. I do not like the pre-vatican church where there is this sort of reserve. To some it is reverence, but being someone not born during that time, it does not inspire devotion.

Like St Therese, I wish I could be a priest and hold Christ in my hands, but since women are not called by God to be priests, I am completely fine with that. Yet, everyone is so focused on splicing hairs, but by the time we actually approach Christ in Holy Communion we are too busy judging those who receive in the hand or bow, or do not bow, or genuflect or do not genuflect, that we lose sight of Christ himself.

No wonder Jesus said, "Do not hinder the little children!" he mentioned nothing of adults.

[Romans1513]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1168712' date='Jan 17 2007, 10:20 PM']
It must be made clear that this is not to be misconstrued as an attack on individuals who receive on the hand. Certainly it is quite licit to receive on the hand in dioceses where the Bishop has approved the practice in accord with the indult, and it is certainly true that hand reception does not by nature imply that the communicant has less devotion than the tongue communicant.
[/quote]

yes! I wanted to add something to this effect, but I wasn't sure how to word it. What matters most is the devotion of the communicant.

[Mr.Cat]

No one has the right to hold our Blessed Lord for we all are sinners, it is only the Priest acting in the Persona of Christ that holds Him in consecrated and holy hands (for they are the hands of Christ). I would rather revere and in holy fear honor my Blessed Lord by receiving Him through the mouth remembering I am merely a child. The Church most earnestly exhorts Holy Communion in the traditional manner and any person whom truly revered our Blessed Lord in love would certainly want to honor Him in such a humbling of one’s self and one’s own wishes or desires...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1168724' date='Jan 17 2007, 10:37 PM']
yes! I wanted to add something to this effect, but I wasn't sure how to word it. What matters most is the devotion of the communicant.
[/quote]
Subjectively I suppose, but from the bigger perspective we must keep in mind precisely what liturgical norms are and why they're important. They are not arbitrary rules that are eclipsed by private devotion and taking them seriously does not make one a "hair splitter". Liturgical norms are in essence (to quote the Church herself) "[i]manifestations of what we believe and what we have received from tradition[/i]".

But I don't believe that this discussion can even begin to approach any kind of resolution if it remains focused on communion on the hand. The real issues that make this an issue in the first place are much broader.

Insane numbers of Catholics are totally unaware of the Real Presence or simply don't believe in it. I have had priests "inform" me of the fact that since Vatican II belief in the Real Presence is optional. Catholic morality has also become optional apparently. And yet I'm to believe that it is totally trivial and inconsequential that during a crisis of this magnitude a rogue movement would gain ground in promoting the practice of Communion on the hand? Why would something so 'trivial' as this have been such a passionate issue for these crusaders? In light of where we're at it is all too fitting. [i]Lex orandi, lex credendi[/i] after all. Most people probably don't realize that Communion on the hand started in the modern Church as organized rebellion.

Seriously though, why do people receive on the hand these days? I'm not asking this as a personal question but as a question of culture. How and why is it that we find ourselves in a Catholic culture in which hand reception is the norm? How did this come about? Who were some of the master minds? What did these people believe about the Church? What were these people's intentions? What was the ultimate agenda? Self proclaimed 'architects of a new Catholicism'.

These are the sorts of things that drive my perspective, not whether or not receiving on the hand is in itself some kind of intrinsically evil act. And this particular subject is just the tip of the iceberg.