Communion On The Tongue

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1755368' date='Jan 19 2009, 03:17 PM']When was the last time true orthodoxy prevailed? By that, I mean a heart-felt devotion to orthodoxy among laypeople, and not just the appearances of it that have plagued most of Western Catholicism since at least the Industrial Revolution?



I'm sure he's right. That doesn't mean anything will happen soon, though. It's taken most of our lifetimes just to get a revised English Missal approved.



Part of the reason there would be so much rebellion is the confusion that results from our bishops permitting something and then taking it back a few decades later. This is what some parishes in Louisville are complaining about. The archbishop is requiring kneelers in all parishes and a lot of people simply don't understand why they were allowed to worship without kneelers only three decades ago, allowed to build churches and install pews without kneelers, and now there's an about face. It leaves a lot of people dumbfounded, and we are talking about the kind of Catholics who aren't all that trusting of their bishops to begin with. So instead of building up what little trust remains, even that is damaged.

But at the end of the day, it's the bishops' call. I say this just to show that there are other considerations they need to keep in mind. These decisions are never as simple as we make them with our narrowly-focused agendas.[/quote]

Is it better to let an abuse continue just because we have been doing it, or get back on the right track? Don't you think we had any anguish when this stuff was suddenly taken away from us??

[MithLuin]

Communion in the hand is not an "abuse." I realize that other changes/practices are, but this one is not.

[StColette]

Walburga,

Speak with your priest. That's the only advice I can give. The priest and deacons at my parish know that I receive on the tongue so they've gotten pretty used to it. If you can sit toward the front, first pew if possible, it may be less confusion for the priest if you are one of the first to receive. Priests, Deacons, and EMHCs can just get into the habit of everyone receiving in the hands in a communion line and then someone receiving on the tongue comes up and they get a little thrown off. If you are one of the first to go up some of the confusion could be avoided.


God Bless,
Jennie

[walburga]

[quote name='StColette' post='1755407' date='Jan 19 2009, 03:45 PM']Walburga

I might talk to our priest. He's not confused at all. I belong to a very small parish in a very small town and it is also a very... um, 'traditional' sort of parish. Our pastor knows my personally. Many people in our parish receive Communion on the tongue. There is one woman who not only kneels on the floor, but after she receives Communion, crawls away on her knees. SHE sits in the front pew and that way, there is less chance of someone who may be unsuspecting, tripping over her. One of my best friends receives kneeling. I would too, but it's pretty awkward for the person behind you. The point is, in my parish, people receive Communion in a variety of ways. Our pastor has only been here two weeks and he's already got it down. As I say, there are really only a few of us! The problem is not that I don't know what I'm doing or that he doesn't know what I'm doing or that he doesn't know what he's doing... I think it is that the Host is too big. I believe where I was this summer the Host was generally smaller. For certain the priests Host was. When I recieve the very smallest part of the priest's host (usually on a day that I'm the cantor), it's no problem. When I recieve the regular Host or the larger part of the priest's host, there's a little danger. I think my mouth is just too small or something.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
have you tried practicing in front of a mirror? i know it's awkward, but it made me realize that i probably was not opening my mouth wide enough for the priest to put the Host on my tongue properly.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1755390' date='Jan 19 2009, 03:30 PM']Is it better to let an abuse continue just because we have been doing it, or get back on the right track? Don't you think we had any anguish when this stuff was suddenly taken away from us??[/quote]

Some Catholics felt that way, but the prevailing opinion appears to be in favor of the changes that happened.

Let the bishops take care of us. The best thing about being Catholic is we can let go of this kind of stuff. Besides, it's not like you are not allowed to receive Communion on the tongue or kneeling. Some priests may throw a hissy fit... if that bothers you, take your complaint to one of the martyrs in heaven. Or tell CatholicWing in Pakistan what a hard time you're having. I think all of us in America (myself included) are just plain spoiled.

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

As long as there are catechists that teach the beauty and the depth of the Eucharist in the first place, I think whichever way is fine, as long as it is reverent. I prefer to receive on the tongue just because I really don't feel worthy to hold Him in my hands. I was even an extraordinary Eucharistic minister for several years and I felt rather uncomfortable holding Christ in my hand. By the end of communion, my hands would be shaking!

Receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist calls for reverence and deep love for Him. I don't think it matters which way you receive, as long as it is done in love and for reverence for Him.

Out of all the people who I know that receive on the hand (which is many) there has only been one through the years that would inspect her hands after receiving to make sure there was no fragment of Jesus left there. She is trying to start a religious community.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1756290' date='Jan 20 2009, 10:42 AM']Some Catholics felt that way, but the prevailing opinion appears to be in favor of the changes that happened.[/quote]


You obviously were not there when the changes happened or you wouldn't say this. People were very upset then their churches were "modernized". We were not given a choice, the priest/bishop simply went ahead and did it. The high altars were taken away, the altar rails removed, the statues of the saints removed. All the traditional activities disappeared - May Crownings, Forty Hours etc. New churches that were built looked like the local union hall with a crucifix. We weren't asked if we wanted Communion in the Hand or told that we could still receive on the tongue. It just was announced and it changed.
The prevailing opinion now agrees with it because they are the ones who didn't leave the church because of it or join the SSPX type people. Or they joined the orthodox, or gave up altogether. Between Humane Vitae and the all the changes there was a mass exodus of catholics.
I have been in the same parish for 50 years, and I remember what it was then and now. Only in the last couple of priests have the statues come back, and the large crucifix etc. Unfortunately I'm in the inner city and there are no young people left to see it. When we close we will have to go to one of those incredibly boring and ugly new buildings.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1755393' date='Jan 19 2009, 03:38 PM']Communion in the hand is not an "abuse." I realize that other changes/practices are, but this one is not.[/quote]
I was not referring to it as an abuse. I am simply lumping it with all the other progessive "changes" that fell upon the church.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1756337' date='Jan 20 2009, 12:15 PM']You obviously were not there when the changes happened or you wouldn't say this. People were very upset then their churches were "modernized". We were not given a choice, the priest/bishop simply went ahead and did it. The high altars were taken away, the altar rails removed, the statues of the saints removed. All the traditional activities disappeared - May Crownings, Forty Hours etc. New churches that were built looked like the local union hall with a crucifix. We weren't asked if we wanted Communion in the Hand or told that we could still receive on the tongue. It just was announced and it changed.
The prevailing opinion now agrees with it because they are the ones who didn't leave the church because of it or join the SSPX type people. Or they joined the orthodox, or gave up altogether. Between Humane Vitae and the all the changes there was a mass exodus of catholics.
I have been in the same parish for 50 years, and I remember what it was then and now. Only in the last couple of priests have the statues come back, and the large crucifix etc. Unfortunately I'm in the inner city and there are no young people left to see it. When we close we will have to go to one of those incredibly boring and ugly new buildings.[/quote]

I wasn't alive back then, so I can only go by what I've observed. If the majority of Catholics cared so much, why didn't they challenge their priests and bishops when these things happened? Why was it acceptable to challenge the Pope on [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] but not the parish priest when he removes the high altar? The math doesn't add up. I'm convinced the Church was in a bad way long before Vatican II. Seems every traditionally-minded Catholics points the finger at Vatican II yet it seems none will simply ask the next logical question, "Why was Vatican II called?" Ecumenical councils are called to address real concerns. So, what were those concerns?

Edited January 20, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1756545' date='Jan 20 2009, 02:27 PM']I wasn't alive back then, so I can only go by what I've observed. If the majority of Catholics cared so much, why didn't they challenge their priests and bishops when these things happened? Why was it acceptable to challenge the Pope on [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] but not the parish priest when he removes the high altar? The math doesn't add up. I'm convinced the Church was in a bad way long before Vatican II. Seems every traditionally-minded Catholics points the finger at Vatican II yet it seems none will simply ask the next logical question, "Why was Vatican II called?" Ecumenical councils are called to address real concerns. So, what were those concerns?[/quote]

The idea of challenging a priest or bishop by people in the pews was simply unheard of. The church was simply keeping up with the times, don't ya know. So when it came time to put in new carpet, suddenly a whole re-do was necessary, and the altar and communion rail disappeared. When a new church was built the architectual result looked like a union hall, with no kneelers, confessional, or any sign it was a Catholic Church, other than a cross. The tabernacle lost its central location. This was all the result of a USCCB document on architecture.
The Humane Vitae charge was lead by popular priests, bishops and many theologians. The pewsitters either shut their mouths and continued to use birth control or simply left.

The notion that the church had some golden age, and then things went bad is a fallacy. Things have always been in a bad way of some sort or another. I fully support the need for Vatican II, and the resulting documents. We needed fresh air, but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The aftermath in this country, was less than pretty or fruitful in terms of the people in the pews.