Reception of Christ in the Eucharist

[Didymus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1198234' date='Feb 17 2007, 03:23 PM']haha you spelled it phonetically like how people say it... germs are gross

GIRM
General Instruction on the Roman Missal[/quote]

my bad. I never really think of the title

no really... its the general [i]example[/i] of the Roman Missal

[Moneybags]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1198250' date='Feb 17 2007, 03:31 PM']And we have more opinions. Wonderful.
Now let's bring in what the Church says. That'll be fun.[/quote]

Like half of that post is from what the Church has said! It seems like you are not even reading all of what I write.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1198219' date='Feb 17 2007, 04:13 PM']i do not mean to be rude, but can you prove this?
the bold would indicate that receiving in the mouth has always been the norm.
From what i have read communion in the hand was NOT the norm before the middle ages, despite what some say.[/quote]
Your bold proves nothing. I said early Church and before Trent.

[Moneybags]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1198285' date='Feb 17 2007, 04:04 PM']Your bold proves nothing. I said early Church and before Trent.[/quote]

I have posted quotations from before Trent that point to my opinions on this matter. They are in this thread. Please go back and read them.

[Aloysius]

As has been said (I believe), this was always justified as done only in times of persecution. As soon as the Church exited the age of great persecution and became an officially recognized religion in the Roman Empire, the practice ceased. It was never considered ideal.

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

Which document made reception of the Eucharist in the hand permissible?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1198291' date='Feb 17 2007, 05:08 PM']As has been said (I believe), this was always justified as done only in times of persecution. As soon as the Church exited the age of great persecution and became an officially recognized religion in the Roman Empire, the practice ceased. It was never considered ideal.[/quote]
I was taught it was common practice in the early Church, and that is why the Church permitted the indult. It was not a new practice, but a return to the early Church, just as a revamping of the liturgy was a return to the early Church.

[XIX]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1198282' date='Feb 17 2007, 05:00 PM']Like half of that post is from what the Church has said! It seems like you are not even reading all of what I write. [/quote]
Could you please bold the parts that are from the Church that are binding to people today? Hint: Quotes from popes centuries ago are not binding to people today, since the Church has changed practice relatively recently.

As far as I can tell, Communion on the tongue is recommended but not mandatory for Catholics today. Unless you happen to be in JP2's diocese. There have never been any documents that have formally banned it...unless you were in JP2's diocese. Since it was allowed, that is.

Edited February 17, 2007 by XIX

[Archaeology cat]

On the Extraordinary ministers, I have some split feelings. In my parish when I was in Florida, they were absolutely necessary because about 2500 people were at some services, and it took ~15-20 minutes to do communion even with EMs (and either 2 priests or a priest & a deacon). My parish here, though, is quite small and I'm not sure I see the purpose in having the 5 EMs we have (one for the Host and 4 for the Blood). I never minded that Mass was always 1 hr 10 minutes in Florida, because we got more time to meditate before and after receiving the Eucharist. In fact, I loved that extra time! At least that's my opinion. Though our parish did have a reputation in the diocese for the Catholic Church with the 1.5 hour Masses (depending on which priest said Mass).

Edited February 17, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[Aloysius]

of course, the bishops ought to be instituting Acolytes for these situations of continued necessity.

extra-ordinary ministers are not to be used weekly or daily. that makes them ordinary and the Church has been clear against that.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1198397' date='Feb 17 2007, 11:14 PM']of course, the bishops ought to be instituting Acolytes for these situations of continued necessity.

extra-ordinary ministers are not to be used weekly or daily. that makes them ordinary and the Church has been clear against that.[/quote]

I'm not sure I realize that, about the acolytes that is. How are acolytes instituted? If you want to start a new thread if it's off-topic here, that's fine, I'm just genuinely curious.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='The Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Session 13']CHAPTER VIII.
On the use of this admirable Sacrament.

Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. Now as to the reception of the sacrament, [b]it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests[/b]; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.

But forasmuch as it is not enough to declare the truth, if errors be not laid bare and repudiated, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all, -the Catholic doctrine being already recognised,-may now also understand what are the heresies which they ought to guard against and avoid.[/quote]

In Latin, the bolded phrase is:
[quote name='Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils' date=' Volume II']In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in ecclesia Die mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotalibus communionem acciperent.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1198323' date='Feb 17 2007, 05:23 PM']I was taught it was common practice in the early Church, and that is why the Church permitted the indult. It was not a new practice, but a return to the early Church, just as a revamping of the liturgy was a return to the early Church.[/quote]
it was a common practice in the Church during the time of persecution. As soon as the Church came out of the time of persecution, the practice all but ceased.

moreover, wherever the practice of communion in the hand was retained, it was not retained in any way, shape, or form the way it is practiced under the current indult. in fact, it wasn't really communion in the hand at all-- it was a peice of cloth in the hand onto which the Eucharist would be placed. I've seen a picture of how a certain other rite receives communion... I'll see if I can find it... but their way of receiving communion "in the hand" from the priest directly is more in continuity with apostolic tradition than our antiquarian attempt to revive a practice from the time of persecution.

there are many things that were intended to be a return to the earlier practices of the Church which did nothing but forget why we stopped those practices in the first place. we stopped communion in the hand because it was no longer necessary-- we had open public spaces to worship in without fear.

EDIT: still looking for that picture. Anyway, the common practice after the time of persecution was to use the hands as a paten (right hand placed over left) when receiving on the tongue, which you were then supposed to consume any crumbs which may have fallen onto them. after a while, the hand began being covered with a cloth, and finally the full-out paten was used. there is no evidence of a widespread practice of communion in the hand after the time of persecution, however.

[Birgitta Noel]

I posted in the other thread and realized I should have posted this here instead so here it is:

My home parish in Florida seats over 2000 people and the Church is full at every mass. It takes numerous communion hymns to complete the distribution of the Eucharist with the priest and no fewer than 8 EMHEs. (Granted they could stop distributing under both species, but that would still require EMHEs, just fewer of them which would be preferable of course!)

This is a weekly occurrence. Even if the 2 priests that are assigned to this parish of 4000-6000 families were at the mass there would STILL be a need for the EMHCs.

Until there are more priests ordained this will be a reality whether you like it or not. Pray for vocations!

I'm not familiar with the process for instituting Acolytes. I know they exist, but please tell us more....

[N/A Gone]

In the mighty scale of all the things we could fix in the church right now (Not the church, but the people) WHy are we worried about this? If it is an issue of laity being unworthy to touch, then we should remember that we are unworthy to eat. We are unworthy to digest. In all respect. We mushy mud pie the remains. There is a fine line between doctrine and fundamentalism and I worry we cross it here.

If this is such a big deal, why isnt there a change? I honestly wish that all churches where old school with high ceilings, icons everywhere all the smells and bells and reflection. But this is not how it is in many churches. In many churches and with most laity we are in a direct battle against the local baptist church. Most laity do not study theology, but if they are told that they can be involved in the baptist church, but can not in the catholic church. What do they do? If the faithful can particiapate in the mass I think it is a good thing. I think it is something we should embrace based on our current situation. If we choose not to battle directly and passionatly then let us battle in the small matters of a person's experience.