Communion in the hand

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

Horse...dead. You receive on the tongue only. Leave the rest of us alone.

Answer what I challenged you.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

What disheartens me are those who recieve the Body but not the Blood of Christ. Such behaviour does not make sense to me.

the host becomes the body and blood so does the wine. if it where otherwise the church wouldn't allow you to receive one without the other. Also it wouldn't make sense for christ to give himself to you as a dead person. But that is what having him separate would mean. so it wouldn't make sense for God to seperate Christs body from his Blood. when body and blood a separate you have a dead person on your hands, In the Host and the wine we receive Christs body blood soul and divinity.

 

[Consiglieri]

Answer what I challenged you.

No. You'll see my answer as an admission of defeat. I see it as me......getting tired of.......you. Horse.....dead.

Bye bye

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

No. You'll see my answer as an admission of defeat. I see it as me......getting tired of.......you. Horse.....dead.

Bye bye

Rather, I see your refusal to answer as an admission of defeat.

 

[LondonAssyrian]

USCCB - Committee on the Liturgy - Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Again thank you very much for this. It explained my point far more eloquently than I could.

15. The communicant makes this act of faith in the total presence of the Lord Jesus Christ whether in Communion under one form or in Communion under both kinds. It should never be construed, therefore, that Communion under the form of bread alone or Communion under the form of wine alone is somehow an incomplete act or that Christ is not fully present to the communicant. The Church's unchanging teaching from the time of the Fathers through the ages--notably in the ecumenical councils of Lateran IV, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican II--has witnessed to a constant unity of faith in the presence of Christ in both elements. (25) Clearly there are some pastoral circumstances that require eucharistic sharing in one species only, such as when Communion is brought to the sick or when one is unable to receive either the Body of the Lord or the Precious Blood due to an illness. Even in the earliest days of the Church's life, when Communion under both species was the norm, there were always instances when the Eucharist was received under only the form of bread or wine. Those who received Holy Communion at home or who were sick would usually receive under only one species, as would the whole Church during the Good Friday Liturgy. (26) Thus, the Church has always taught the doctrine of concomitance, by which we know that under each species alone, the whole Christ is sacramentally present and we "receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace." (27)


16. At the same time an appreciation for reception of "the whole Christ" through one species should not diminish in any way the fuller sign value of reception of Holy Communion under both kinds. For just as Christ offered his whole self, body and blood, as a sacrifice for our sins, so too is our reception of his Body and Blood under both kinds an especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life.

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds



17. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat . . . take and drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.

This ''especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life'' was what I was referring to.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Again thank you very much for this. It explained my point far more eloquently than I could.



This ''especially fitting participation in his memorial of eternal life'' was what I was referring to.

In the eastern rites. They practice intinction which I am all for. It beats the sloppy methods used in some of the western right by far.

I do not think having an entire congregation spread the body of Christ on their hand like cheetos and dribble the body of christ down their chin like grape juice or give themselves a Jesus moustaches is a good idea.

Hence if they revere Christ they should take under one form on the tongue or receive under both species using intinction. But I suppose if they are hung up on sloppy methods of handling their lord and savior I suppose nothing but having spelled out for them in black and white will do.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

In the eastern rites. They practice intinction which I am all for. It beats the sloppy methods used in some of the western right by far.

I do not think having an entire congregation spread the body of Christ on their hand like cheetos and dribble the body of christ down their chin like grape juice or give themselves a Jesus moustaches is a good idea.

Hence if they revere Christ they should take under one form on the tongue or receive under both species using intinction. But I suppose if they are hung up on sloppy methods of handling their lord and savior I suppose nothing but having spelled out for them in black and white will do.

I hope no one gets the idea of doing their own intinction, at least.

 

[Antisock]

As it says, you can't be refused Holy Communion, but you should be given proper instruction on why standing is the norm. From this point, you'd have to examine yourself as to why you feel you need to be different than the rest of the congregation.

That begs several questions doesn't it?

What if ones reason for kneeling has nothing to do with appearing different?

What if a parish kneels at an altar rail, should everyone else do so?

Is someone who then wants to stand only doing so to be different?

If that's the norm for your parish, you should kneel. If I visited a parish and they congregation kneels to receive, then I will.

What if they do both?
I know parishes that have an altar rail they use and also have EMHC's and people who stand.

I also see people at these parishes receive on both hand and tongue in both places. How great it is to have all options offered and a pastor who thinks its important to provide for the broadness the Church offers.

Different, because receiving in the hand isn't the norm, and you wouldn't require catechises if you chose to receive on the tongue.

Its treated as the norm at times though isn't it? And it used to be, just like kneeling was.

Do you see the potential contradiction in that way of thinking?

I mean, after all, in the hand was the original norm and that changed right?

People "feel" humbled to receive on the tongue for many reasons.

So do they by kneeling, which in turn also used to be the norm.

So it seems that by saying that one is a norm, that used to be, the other isn't so one requires pastoral guidance when it in fact used to be the norm for good reason.

Do you know any priests who counsel anyone for kneeling? I don't.

I have on the other hand heard of priests refusing communion to people who "felt" like kneeling which is condemned by the Church.

Which doesn't really seem to make sense to me or anyone else for that matter. But it used to. I know people who can still remember rarely receiving communion and only felt they could do so if they practically received right in the confessional after receiving absolution.

Its as if a few believe in saying those who kneel are being too reverent for kneeling while other parishes use altar rails and a portion of the parish kneels all the time.

Kneeling when receiving when the rest of the congregation is standing presents two problems. First, depending on the situation, you could end up tripping some one, as they're not expecting a person's legs to be sticking out behind them. Two, the priest has to bend down especially if he's standing on first step of to the altar area as many do.

Yea, practicality is understood.

Should a "pastor" provide for someone so moved to kneel before the Lord or make it difficult or impossible for them to do that?

Whats the meaning of the word pastor? To care for or to control?

Either way, its up to the individual pastors to provide the catechises on why at their parish, everyone should stand to receive Holy Communion.

Yea, thats what it says but I have never heard of that happening. Just public humiliation and denial. That doesn't seem very pastoral does it?

Lets face it, there will always be people who will want to do one better over those who kneel and who knows what they'll do.

Protestants say that if we really believed it was the Lord in the Host/tabernacle we should be on our faces. Maybe thats next - Or intinction fed on a gold spoon.

 

[Antisock]

The first question, I can only answer for myself, and I have. I find on the tongue to be more reverant.

The second is something I cannot answer either since it is for God.

Maybe you could give us your answers to these?

OK, I didn't think they were that difficult. Let me re-quote them:

Do you think it possible to receive either on the tongue or hand with the same attitudinal disposition of reverence in ones heart?

Of course its possible to be as reverent in ones disposition no matter how they receive, be it standing, kneeling, on the tongue, in the hand, or in a bed or a wheel chair. Out ward appearance is little more than a symbol when ones heart and mind is lifted to the Lord. None of these ways gives scandal.

What else does God care about?

Its not impossible to know the mind of God.

Simply read the scriptures because how he thinks is contained there. God tells us that he cares not for vanity.

He tells us those who make a self righteous spectacle of themselves already have their reward.

He tells us that what he wants in our disposition is to be internal.

Its in disposition of our heart, mind and soul.

He also tells us that we will live what we believe.

By putting all those things together and by looking in the mirror we can decide what he thinks and then what we believe.

There are different ways to look at our disposition.

One can feasibly love the Lord less than someone who receives on the hand if they kneel and receive on the tongue out of some false idea that they are setting an example for others while the one receiving standing in the hand has their heart and mind risen to the Lord.

Do you see what I mean by disposition now?

Think of the differences between humility, internal sanctification and being a white washed hypocrite.

Then apply all this to all the ways the Church allows for communion and you will know why, in her wisdom, she provides for all these options.

Its because none of us can judge whats in ones heart for the Lord just by how they choose a Church apprved way to approach the sacrament.

To judge one because of that choice is done in error. Recieving Christ is personal, and we should be concerned with our own disposition. Not those of others.

Watch people. Some of the holiest people you would ever want to meet recieve in the hand and some of the most troubled can be the ones who kneel and visa v.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

I hope no one gets the idea of doing their own intinction, at least.

Indeed that is something that the priest should be doing. But alas if they did it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near the worst abuse of Christs body and blood that I've seen.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

OK, I didn't think they were that difficult. Let me re-quote them:

Do you think it possible to receive either on the tongue or hand with the same attitudinal disposition of reverence in ones heart?

Of course its possible to be as reverent in ones disposition no matter how they receive, be it standing, kneeling, on the tongue, in the hand, or in a bed or a wheel chair. Out ward appearance is little more than a symbol when ones heart and mind is lifted to the Lord. None of these ways gives scandal.

What else does God care about?

Its not impossible to know the mind of God.

Simply read the scriptures because how he thinks is contained there. God tells us that he cares not for vanity.

He tells us those who make a self righteous spectacle of themselves already have their reward.

He tells us that what he wants in our disposition is to be internal.

Its in disposition of our heart, mind and soul.

He also tells us that we will live what we believe.

By putting all those things together and by looking in the mirror we can decide what he thinks and then what we believe.

There are different ways to look at our disposition.

One can feasibly love the Lord less than someone who receives on the hand if they kneel and receive on the tongue out of some false idea that they are setting an example for others while the one receiving standing in the hand has their heart and mind risen to the Lord.

Do you see what I mean by disposition now?

Think of the differences between humility, internal sanctification and being a white washed hypocrite.

Then apply all this to all the ways the Church allows for communion and you will know why, in her wisdom, she provides for all these options.

Its because none of us can judge whats in ones heart for the Lord just by how they choose a Church apprved way to approach the sacrament.

To judge one because of that choice is done in error. Recieving Christ is personal, and we should be concerned with our own disposition. Not those of others.

Watch people. Some of the holiest people you would ever want to meet recieve in the hand and some of the most troubled can be the ones who kneel and visa v.

The problem with the quoted post is it presumes to know what is in the heart of people when they kneel or stand.

It assumes that those who kneel do so out of pride

It assumes that those who dispose themselves by way of an external are not attempting to influence the internal by way of the external.

It assumes that those who do differently than the author do so out of a lack of intellectual honesty or because they don't "look themselves in the mirror"

I would rather not assume things about peoples character. Instead I would like to talk about what practices are recommend and might be useful in forming a reverent disposition, because that at least would be productive.

 

[AMDG]

It assumes that those who kneel do so out of pride

There's also the assumption that those who do not kneel are doing so because they like the idea of wanting to "follow the leader without thinking and simply desire to look like everyone else--not caring about showing reverence Our Lord". OTOH, it just could be an elderly person who desires to show Our Lord reverence, but because there is no kneeler present, just couldn't get up again once down.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I don't care how someone receives...

But what i can say - on my own behalf is that I feel different since receiving only by the tongue. Its a wonderful experience for me, and the feeling grows deeper each time.
It feels more reverent somehow... and i did receive by the hand for many years because that's what i was told i should do.

SO personally, by the tongue exceeds in entire feeling of receiving than by hand.

Just my small input.

 

[Antisock]

I would rather not assume things about peoples character. Instead I would like to talk about what practices are recommend and might be useful in forming a reverent disposition, because that at least would be productive.

It appears you just didn't get it.

The point was that judgements about anothers disposition cannot be made.

All practices currently in use are recommended.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

It appears you just didn't get it.

The point was that judgements about anothers disposition cannot be made.

All practices currently in use are recommended.

It appears I have to disagree with you again. Not everything that allowed is recommended. It is a mistake to think that because the Church allows many things that she puts them all on the same level, or even that they are all recommended.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

It appears you just didn't get it.

The point was that judgements about anothers disposition cannot be made.

All practices currently in use are recommended.

What of my post on page 16?

 

[Antisock]

It appears I have to disagree with you again. Not everything is that allowed is recommended. It is a mistake to think that because the Church allows many things that she puts them all on the same level, or even that they are all recommended.

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.

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

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.

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.

This is how heterodoxy slips in.

"Let's forget tradition so that we can get more parishioners to go to Mass and donate more money."

 

[Antisock]

What of my post on page 16?

You lost me bud? Which post?

 

[Antisock]

This is how heterodoxy slips in.

"Let's forget tradition so that we can get more parishioners to go to Mass and donate more money."

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.