Communion in the hand

[2WhomShallWeGo]

If you want to be productive than accept that anyone in the Church can receive however the Church officially allows for and leave it at that.

If the Church officially approves of options then they ARE ALL recommended. All the documentation proves as much.

What the level of efficacy is for any given person is subjective to them personally.

Thats why the Church approves of broad options. For the efficacy of ALL the faithful.

Not to try and squeeze everyone into a narrow box.

The words allowed and recommended are not at all defined the same. Allowed does not mean recommended. The Church hierarchy is not illiterate.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

Well, if one reads the norms, rubrics and bylaws of the Church then they would know thats not true.

What your calling heterodoxy here is simply an appreciation for diversity by the Church.

No one is expected to forget tradition.

Where did your quote come from?

Is that something you just made up?

Thats quite a stretch of the imagination to infer the Church allows for options to make money.

I'm not saying that the Church allows for options to make money, I'm saying that it seems that some priests allow existing or new heterodoxy for the sake of keeping parishioners going to Mass each week.

 

[Antisock]

The words allowed and recommended are not at all defined the same. Allowed does not mean recommended. The Church hierarchy is not illiterate.

The point of these semantics do not change the facts.

We can choose to receive however we feel most comfortable with as allowed by the Church and she says no one can refuse us for that choice.

The Church makes no official recommendation of one way to receive over another.

Narrow minded people do that to each other, not the Church.

If the Church did this, she simply would not allow the other ways in the first place.

What is most efficacious for one person may be different for another.

Its left up to them to decide.

The Church protects any choice of how to officially receive that we make.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

The point of these semantics do not change the facts.

We can choose to receive however we feel most comfortable with as allowed by the Church and she says no one can refuse us for that choice.

The Church makes no official recommendation of one way to receive over another.

Narrow minded people do that to each other, not the Church.

If the Church did this, she simply would not allow the other ways in the first place.

What is most efficacious for one person may be different for another.

Its left up to them to decide.

The Church protects any choice of how to officially receive that we make.

Sacred Tradition and past leaders and saints have all considered Communion in the hand to be an invalid way for the laity to receive.

 

[Antisock]

I'm not saying that the Church allows for options to make money, I'm saying that it seems that some priests allow existing or new heterodoxy for the sake of keeping parishioners going to Mass each week.

Sure those things happen on occasion. This matter isn't one of them. The officially allowed manners to receive communion are fully supported by the Magisterium.

There is a difference between development of doctrine and heterodoxy.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

Sure those things happen on occasion. This matter isn't one of them. The officially allowed manners to receive communion are fully supported by the Magisterium.

There is a difference between development of doctrine and heterodoxy.

Don't forget Sacred Tradition, which at this point in the thread has been completely ignored except where convenient to mention it.

Every time I get a chance to log in, I find myself falling further and further behind in this thread.

Firstly, St Cyril also wrote "...sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ's Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs." How many of you guys actually do this?

Secondly, from the Council of Rouen: "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths."

Thirdly, Communion on the tongue was the definitive practice for what, 1600 years? One source (St. Cyril) says that it is fine to receive on the hand, so automatically everyone decides that the next 1500-1600 years of Church teaching and practice is made irrelevant just because modernist popes and one early Catholic saint said so? What about St. Basil, who said "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution?"

Read this list of quotations (Communion In The Hand - Quotations) and tell me that they don't trump St. Cyril and recent, questionable popes.

 

[Antisock]

Sacred Tradition and past leaders and saints have all considered Communion in the hand to be an invalid way for the laity to receive.

That is incorrect.

The Magisterium of the Church explicitly approves of that indult.

No Saint pits himself against the Magisterium.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

That is incorrect.

The Magisterium of the Church explicitly approves of that indult.

No Saint pits himself against the Magisterium.

Read what I posted.

 

[Antisock]

Don't forget Sacred Tradition, which at this point in the thread has been completely ignored except where convenient to mention it.

Tradition has historically been both ways of receiving.

As someone who has knelt to receive on the tongue for decades, I am here to tell you that you are incorrect and you have no right to pit one way of receiving against the other.

Learn what the Church teaches in approval of communion in the hand. That info has been provided in this thread already.

Why do you persist in contradicting that Magisterial position?

Understanding this completely will only come by keeping an open mind.

 

[Antisock]

Read what I posted.

Understand what I posted.

And no it wasn't the tradition for 1600 years.

What is the Council of Rouen?

Why don't you quote your source with a link?

Pope John XXIII convened Vatican Council II in 1962. The Council’s first document was
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This fundamental teaching of the Church opened
even further the understanding of the Eucharist and many of the practices regarding it.​

On May 29, 1969, in the document Memoriale Domini the Church gave permission for the
faithful to return to the ancient ritual practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand and
the practice went into effect in the United States on November 20, 1977. Lay people could
now receive Holy Communion reverently, either on their tongue or in their hand. About
this practice, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the 4th century: “Make your left hand a
throne for your right, because your right is going to receive the King; make a hollow of your
palm and receive the body of Christ, saying after it: ‘Amen!’ … Then, after you have
partaken of the body of Christ, come forward to the chalice of His blood…”.​

On January 29, 1973, the instruction Immensae caritatis was issued by Pope Paul VI.
With this instruction, the diocesan bishop was given permission to designate lay men and
women to distribute the Eucharist as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It stated
that “…this faculty may be used whenever there is no priest, deacon or instituted acolyte
present, or when the ordinary minister is prevented from administering Communion
because of other pastoral obligations, ill health, or advanced age, or when the number of
the faithful is so great that, unless Extraordinary Ministers assist in the distribution, the
celebration would be unduly prolonged.” It should also be noted that when Communion
under Both Kinds is offered, the deacon, if present at Mass, is the ordinary minister of the​

Sacred Cup.

Read the documents above in bold. I have to go.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

Understand what I posted.

And no it wasn't the tradition for 1600 years.

What is the Council of Rouen?

Why don't you quote your source with a link?

Pope John XXIII convened Vatican Council II in 1962. The Council’s first document was
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This fundamental teaching of the Church opened
even further the understanding of the Eucharist and many of the practices regarding it.​

On May 29, 1969, in the document Memoriale Domini the Church gave permission for the
faithful to return to the ancient ritual practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand and
the practice went into effect in the United States on November 20, 1977. Lay people could
now receive Holy Communion reverently, either on their tongue or in their hand. About
this practice, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the 4th century: “Make your left hand a
throne for your right, because your right is going to receive the King; make a hollow of your
palm and receive the body of Christ, saying after it: ‘Amen!’ … Then, after you have
partaken of the body of Christ, come forward to the chalice of His blood…”.​

On January 29, 1973, the instruction Immensae caritatis was issued by Pope Paul VI.
With this instruction, the diocesan bishop was given permission to designate lay men and
women to distribute the Eucharist as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It stated
that “…this faculty may be used whenever there is no priest, deacon or instituted acolyte
present, or when the ordinary minister is prevented from administering Communion
because of other pastoral obligations, ill health, or advanced age, or when the number of
the faithful is so great that, unless Extraordinary Ministers assist in the distribution, the
celebration would be unduly prolonged.” It should also be noted that when Communion
under Both Kinds is offered, the deacon, if present at Mass, is the ordinary minister of the​

Sacred Cup.

Read the documents above in bold. I have to go.

I know what they say already. You still haven't read what I posted or the link I gave in the very first post of this thread, from where my quotes originate.

What you quote of latter popes ignored Mediator Dei by Pope Pius XII.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

​

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.​

Guess what his successors did? That's right, they reverted to early prescriptions by bringing back Communion on the hand, which is only supported here by that one St. Cyril quote, even though St. Cyril also advocated doing things with the Blood that you guys probably wouldn't do now.
​

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

The point of these semantics do not change the facts.

We can choose to receive however we feel most comfortable with as allowed by the Church and she says no one can refuse us for that choice.

This is not exactly true for starters you can not walk into an eastern rite church that distributes by intinction and receive on the hand. You could try to complain to rome but nothing will come of it

The Church makes no official recommendation of one way to receive over another. .... The Church protects any choice of how to officially receive that we make.

The point is that just because a thing is allowed doesn't mean that it is recommended. The fact that things are allowed and not recommended means that their is a possibility that something else that is also allowed might be better.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

It should also be noted that just because a thing is allowed doesn't mean that it is the best idea, there are times when the Church in her wisdom can make a prudential decision that some practice which is not ideal but it is not heretical will be allowed even though it may muddy the waters somewhat because disallowing the practice will simply lead to disobiedence "en masse".

A consequence of the above is that saints Can make recommendations that a practice be disallowed and that a practice is not in keeping with the faith while at the same time the church can even allow for a practice that might be unwise for us to make use of. THIS is why the difference between a recommendation and an allowance is NOT irrelevant.

 

[Antisock]

This is not exactly true for starters you can not walk into an eastern rite church that distributes by intinction and receive on the hand. You could try to complain to rome but nothing will come of it.

The concept of autonomy makes bringing the Eastern Churches into this irrelevant. What you fail to realize is that the Church also protects the Eastern Churches right to preserve its culture as well as the West.

The Eastern Churches can and do receive in the hand if they so choose as well and always have just as the Western Church did for over 1000 years.

The point is that just because a thing is allowed doesn't mean that it is recommended. The fact that things are allowed and not recommended means that their is a possibility that something else that is also allowed might be better.

Thats an irrelevant point as well. That fallacy presumes that the Church is wrong in its judgment or that one can predict what is in the hearts of people because of how they choose to receive as if one way is better than the other. You have no way to know that. Absolutely none. And even if it were true, it is better to express that love from the heart, that the Lord alone can judge, and as the Church approves of than by some man who cares only for appearances and is hardened of heart toward the needs of others.

Would you stigmatize all those who receive standing and in the hand as somehow loving the Lord less? That would come off as rather bigoted and full of ones self wouldn't it?

For the sake of that fallacy, lets assume everyone loves the Lord in varying degrees. What should the Church do for those folks who struggle with a weaker faith than some? Force them on their faces? As if doing that would make them love the Lord more. How would you personally encourage folks to love the Lord more, by forcing them to kneel and receive on the tongue?

Would you tell those who prefer the ancient practice of receiving in the hand they aren't as Christian as they could be because they don't want to perform the same praxis as you when the CHURCH has officially sanctioned what they are doing? This is in effect what one is doing when they push a false notion contrary to the Church like receiving on the hand or standing is not good enough.

Should these who follow the Church be receiving communion as you seem to approve of or how the Church approves of? Obviously the answer is the Church. Would you presume to tell the Church what she should allow or not? It seems you would.

What would Jesus do for these folks who others don't think love him as much as they do because they don't express that love the same way as they do? It seems those hardened of heart may actually be the lessor Christian because they fail to recognize that Christs will is for us all to be sensitive to the plight of our neighbor. It seems those of divisive opinions could not care less about the plight of ones neighbor because they would shun them for not doing things as they would have them.

Can one claim to be a better Christian when they neglect the plight of those around them in lieu of appearing more holy when inside they are actually hard of heart? Isn't that the same mistake the Pharisees made? it is.

"The crux of the problem on both sides of this issue is resistance to authority."
The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand

In its early history the members of the Christian community did what Jesus told them to do - they took and ate and drank knowing in faith that this was indeed a sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacred bread was taken in hand and the Sacred Cup was shared by all.​

As time went on and the Church no longer consisted of members who had actually seen and known the Lord, and for many cultural and historical reasons, Eucharistic practices slowly began to change. By the 9th century the language of the Mass was no longer that of the people, as it was in the early Church. The altar table was moved from the midst of the people to the back wall of the church. The presider no longer faced the people as he led them in prayer. The Eucharist became so removed from the people that the Christian community came to see themselves as unworthy of this precious gift, even though they were baptized and redeemed by the Lord. Few people received Holy Communion, and only then on the tongue. By the 13th century the cup was no longer shared with the people. As a result of these and other practices, the people’s main contact with the Eucharist was through the elevation of the Eucharistic species which was actually added to the Mass. For the people this elevation was their opportunity to “receive” for “seeing” became “receiving.” Jesus’ command to his followers to “take and eat, and take and drink” seemed to no longer apply to all believers.​

In modern times, the event which began to change this approach to the Eucharist was the election of Pope Pius X in 1903. Pope Pius X knew the great importance of the command of Jesus that believers “take and eat” that he changed the practice of the Church. No longer did a person have to wait until the age of 14 or 15 to be eligible to share in Holy Communion. Children who reached the age of reason, usually about 7 years old, were
now welcomed to the altar table of the Lord. By bringing the children to the altar table, Pope Pius X also brought with them their parents and grandparents. Through this action participation in Holy Communion began to be returned to all believers.​

http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/SacramentalPolicies/GuidelinesEMHC.pdf

Historically, the wrong way of thinking lead to no one recieving communion. Thank God for the Church to lead the faithful back to the sacraments.

 

[Antisock]

I know what they say already. You still haven't read what I posted or the link I gave in the very first post of this thread, from where my quotes originate.

Then ascend to them and stop putting yourself outside of those documents. I think I did read and answer your OP. But I'm not even going to go check to be sure because your attitude is obstinately contrary to that of the Church on this as all the documentation proves. When you open your mind then we can talk. Not until.

Guess what his successors did? That's right, they reverted to early prescriptions by bringing back Communion on the hand, which is only supported here by that one St. Cyril quote, even though St. Cyril also advocated doing things with the Blood that you guys probably wouldn't do now.

The indult is not a reversion, its an addition and never does he make a blanket generalization or specifically mention recieving on the hand. You do and apply his words to later actions of Popes that you refuse to ascend to.

Why do you debate against what the Church has done? Are you on the verge of denying the Pope? Do you think you can contradict the development of the Church with the Church?

 

[Antisock]

Read what I posted.

If a priest asked you to help him distribute communion would you refuse?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If a priest asked you to help him distribute communion would you refuse?

I might.

 

[Antisock]

I might.

Matthew 25:35
For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

John 6:[62] ... Doth this scandalize you? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

 

[Antisock]

1 Corinthians 9:13
Know you not, that they who work in the holy place, eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar, partake with the altar?

Galatians 5:13
For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Matthew 25:35
For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

John 6:[62] ... Doth this scandalize you? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

Not sure your meaning or if you can speak plainly?

I will speak plainly though...

At our church only the clergy or someone approved by the priest is allowed to be a Eucharisted Minister. This means that the only people as EM are the bishops, priests, deacons, alter servers, or ushers.

As an usher our priest has allowed me to be a Eucharistic Minister. And there was a time that I was ask to help as a EM. But I was gripped with panic. Very embarassing too.

My reverance for Jesus in the Eucharist is great. I have no doubt that Jesus is present fully in the Eucharist. But, I am overwhelmed...