Communion in the hand

[Antisock]

Not sure your meaning or if you can speak plainly?

Gods words are better than mine and the Holy Spirit brings them to mind. You should try to listen to them.

I will speak plainly though...

It wasn't plain when you said:

"I might"

with no explanation.

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.

Correct.

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.

You were temporarily allowed to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Excuse the semantics, I know what you meant.

But I was gripped with panic. Very embarassing too.

Oh, I am sorry. You can be healed of that. Go to the root of that fear.

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...

The reason your not comfortable is not because of your reverence.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I see...

Not sure why the fear, if it is fear.

I attribibuted it to a fear of being in front of an audience but that seemed unlikely since I have dealt with that fear over the years. God has been great with revealing the answers to me in the past but in this I think it is simply that I am not ready and nothing more.

 

[Colin]

In receiving the Eucharist we have several options .

We can receive the Body of Christ on the tongue or in the hand .

We need not receive from the chalice if we choose not to .

We do not have the option to let ourselves be distracted when receiving the Eucharist . We should be as focussed as possible on what we are doing . This precludes irreverent behaviour whereby we are so focussed on what others are doing that we neglect to be in the right prayerful attitude .

I can only repeat what I said above and hope .

 

[WarriorAngel]

Normally i dont care how people receive... as is their choice.

One time at Christmas we were up front and i could see people take the Host in their hands and act like it meant nothing. This happened with people i dont see regularly. Just at Christmas.
There was an irreverence and apathy that seemed tangible.
One young girl carried it with her a few feet and treated it as an object i was very concerned when i saw her carrying it....

My fear in receiving Him in the hand is that people take it lightly.
Not saying this is the norm, but the possibility does exist for mistreatment and blasphemous situations to occur.

His Sacred Heart took quite a beating for us, and letting people mishandle His Heart [the Eucharist is His heart] worries me for the pain they inflict on Him.

Why does anyone feel they are worthy to handle His Heart with their hands at all?
The American Church [Bishops] forced the Pope to allow this practice, that doesn't make it right... just allowable.

DO as you will, but really consider it.

 

[paul becke]

An interesting thought, perhaps. Did Jesus, in his own, historical person, feed the bread of his body to the Apostles at the Last Supper from his hand to their mouth, to forfend against the possibility of their treating it irreverently?

Jesus, came in all humility, not to domineer over us, but to save us. Of course, the legalism in the Church's teaching is there for a very good purpose, but we should surely not lose sight of the fact that Jesus did not want legalism to come between himself and his children?

In his lament over Jerusalem, Jesus used the image, not of Christ the King, necessary as it is for us to understand the truth of it, as well, but of a mother hen gathering her brood under wings.

It seems to me that nowhere is this spirit more germane than when we receive Holy Communion; which is a strange thing for me to say, since I view the Mass rather as as being on parade in the army, more than anything.

I do think that there is enough about the tone of the Mass to ensure that anyone with a spark of reverence will observe it during the service, and that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue would not be make good its absence in the Communicant.

There is always an absolute requirement for a reverential formality in any liturgical rite, but for the reason I stated earlier, receiving the sacred Host on the tongue seems to me to be a gratuitously legalistic distortion of that formality, which does not sit well with the intentions towards us of the divine Person we worship and, consequently, the nature of the rite.

 

[WarriorAngel]

An interesting thought, perhaps. Did Jesus, in his own, historical person, feed the bread of his body to the Apostles at the Last Supper from his hand to their mouth, to forfend against the possibility of their treating it irreverently?

The Apostles were Bishops...so their hands were to be ordained and therefore they dont quite fit in as a lay person.

Jesus, came in all humility, not to domineer over us, but to save us. Of course, the legalism in the Church's teaching is there for a very good purpose, but we should surely not lose sight of the fact that Jesus did not want legalism to come between himself and his children?

In his lament over Jerusalem, Jesus used the image, not of Christ the King, necessary as it is for us to understand the truth of it, as well, but of a mother hen gathering her brood under wings.

It seems to me that nowhere is this spirit more germane than when we receive Holy Communion; which is a strange thing for me to say, since I view the Mass rather as as being on parade in the army, more than anything.

I do think that there is enough about the tone of the Mass to ensure that anyone with a spark of reverence will observe it during the service, and that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue would not be make good its absence in the Communicant.

There is always an absolute requirement for a reverential formality in any liturgical rite, but for the reason I stated earlier, receiving the sacred Host on the tongue seems to me to be a gratuitously legalistic distortion of that formality, which does not sit well with the intentions towards us of the divine Person we worship and, consequently, the nature of the rite.

If God wishes us to consume Him, and He offers His heart - is it possible that touching Him with irreverence, and some do this and in fact steal the Host to do this - causes His crucified Body to ache for reverence due to God?

I mean, Jews were not even allowed near the Holy of Holies and only priests could be there... for a certain time.
And this was not even touching Him...
I imagine God is legalistic....for unfit souls scurry to hell for fear of His Perfect Holiness.

We cannot even see God the Father - because we would die.
The Isrealites feared Him so, His voice, that He promised to not speak directly to men anymore and would send prophets.
Moses could not even wear sandals on Holy ground. Of course God doesnt change...
Mankind has changed from fear and trembling to a buddy buddy system where the Holy reverence has become luke warm.

I am not saying those who revere the Lord are bad for taking it by the hand, but i think few really consider the possibilities of doing such a thing.

Take my opinion or leave it. I cant make anyone sense this the same way.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

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.

My open mind tells me that you want to be equal to priests without being one.

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.

What I quoted from Pope Pius XII applies to the later actions of popes. Pope Pius XII wrote against antiquarianism and later popes made antiquarian decisions anyway.

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?

When will you realize that the decision to revert back to Communion in the hand was made at great reluctance? When will you realize that you can't cherry pick the writings of the popes to fit your arguments and then tell others that anything they bring up is invalid because it disproves your argument?

Most of all...

Why is it when there is some issue in doubt and the papacy encourages the faithful to take a recommended course (in this case receive on the tongue while kneeling), you obstinately refuse to acknowledge this preference, knowing full well to err on the side of caution when it comes to sin?

 

[Antisock]

My open mind tells me that you want to be equal to priests without being one.

Do you know me? Do you think I wish to lead you astray?

What I quoted from Pope Pius XII applies to the later actions of popes. Pope Pius XII wrote against antiquarianism and later popes made antiquarian decisions anyway

Doesn't work that way bro and this indult that the Holy See fully approved was not what Pope Pius XII was talking about at all. It was for his time.

When will you realize that the decision to revert back to Communion in the hand was made at great reluctance? When will you realize that you can't cherry pick the writings of the popes to fit your arguments and then tell others that anything they bring up is invalid because it disproves your argument?

Yet aren't you picking and choosing what to accept from the Magisterium of the Church. You accept only one form of recieving communion when the Church approves of more than that.

Why is it when there is some issue in doubt and the papacy encourages the faithful to take a recommended course (in this case receive on the tongue while kneeling), you obstinately refuse to acknowledge this preference, knowing full well to err on the side of caution when it comes to sin?

Again, do you know me? This is the whole point brother. You cannot know the hearts or minds of anyone but yourself. And we need to learn of ourselves and leave others to Christ.

I do err on the side of caution. I receive kneeling and on the tongue myself but that does not make me deny or reject the rest of the Churches teachings and provisions.

And even though I know Jesus is not respected as he could be, I also know that humans are often fooled by appearances.

Some people are only impressed by visible results. Their praise is worthless because they fail to see the inner goodness of others. And they do not realize how brief are the trials and joys of this present life.

I strive not to be that shallow and will try to follow Gods way of thinking. My trust in Him must not be shaken by the judgments of worldly minded people. It is never God who lets us down but we who fail Him. We fail to trust in Him completely by not letting Him govern our daily life as He wishes.

Well bro, God puts a Church over us for our guidance. I will not reject any part of the fullness of the deposit of faith because I know that God has put it in place to use it as He wishes for our good. Yes, even distributing His body and blood to those who prefer to stand and take Him in their hands.

Remember those who walked away in John 6? Did Jesus send them away or did they leave of their own choosing? Gods way of thinking wills all to come to Him. What provision are you making for those who you do not know, yet perceive to not Love God as they should because of appearances? Would you turn your back on them? Jesus turns His back on no one!

Peace.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

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.

But we as individuals cannot often choose so the point here is that it is not strictly speaking up to us. It is up to the Church.

Thats an irrelevant point as well. That fallacy presumes that the Church is wrong in its judgment

it presumes nothing it states that the church can be wrong in her application with regard to disciplinaries matters and practices which is a notion that the church Herself maintains.[/QUOTE]

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.

Nope that's something you inferred I don't talk about other peoples interior dispositionas as if I know what it is.

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.

You are judging that in my heart I only care for peoples appearance that judgement as you have aptly stated is not yours to make.

Would you stigmatize all those who receive standing and in the hand as somehow loving the Lord less?

no. But my poiint was that stating that the church allows it doesn't mean that she might always allow or always think it is the best practice

That would come off as rather bigoted and full of ones self wouldn't it?

You do seem to like questions that if answered the wrong way give you permission to make judgements about whats in my haert. Yet I haven't done any such thing to you or anyone else. and yet you seem to condemn such a practice.

For the sake of that fallacy,

Why would we do anything for the sake of error Don't you mean the sake of sarcasm?

lets assume everyone loves the Lord in varying degrees.

I don't think we need to assume that I'm pretty sure the church teaches that. (although I suppose some don't love him at all an some don't know him so they can't be expected to)

What should the Church do for those folks who struggle with a weaker faith than some? Force them on their faces?

I'm not sure how you arrive at this strange train of logic

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?

I would encorage them to do the things the church recommends and that her saint recommend. I would think that would be an obvious answer.

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

you justlike asking question that make you seem absurd

when the CHURCH has officially sanctioned what they are doing?

I don't no anything about sanctioned, she has certainly allowed many things

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.

If only I had said such a thing you comment might be of some help to some one.

Should these who follow the Church be receiving communion as you seem to approve of or how the Church approves of?

It's not an either or situation. As I have pointed out the church allows both she does not recommend both.

Obviously the answer is the Church. Would you presume to tell the Church what she should allow or not? It seems you would.

again interesting inference given all that I haven't said.

What would Jesus do for these folks who others don't think love him as much

We all love to varying degrees and merit to varying degrees And the Church tells us there are varying places in heaven. St theresa of the little flower tells us that there are many kind of flowers in the garden. They are not all roses but they are all in the garden. I hope that answers your question, though perhaps it was meant more as an accusation.

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

matthew 10:34"do you think I have come to bring peace? I have not come to bring peacve but a sword" it is an interesting thing for the prince of peace to say but then again he had a lot of devisive opinions.

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.

I'm sure who ever is doing this is in trouble.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

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

this wasn't addressed to me but for my part. Yes, except under extraordinary circumstances refusal is definitely an option allowed by the church.

 

[Antisock]

this wasn't addressed to me but for my part. Yes, except under extraordinary circumstances refusal is definitely an option allowed by the church.

LOL, refusing to or being unwilling or unable to help a priest has as much to do with whats allowed by the Church as it does about the person asked to help.

The last post was too exacerbating to answer.

 

[Antisock]

YouTube - Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider on Communion in the Hand