How to recieve

[Seek Ye First]

Hello, Warrior.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Good to see ya, Seekyefirst and Mark! Always a pleasure!

 

[AMDG]

These things happen & are stopped when seen. But recieving by mouth does not stop abuse either. I know that by what we've seen on YouTube & read about. Nothing is foolproof.

Of course nothing is foolproof. And of course, when these abuses happen, they are stopped. All I said was that abuse is easier (even unintended abuse) and that's why some don't like Communion in-the-hand. The question was not whether or not there is an indult allowing it along with Communion on-the-tongue.

 

[JoabAnias]

Was an EMHC for a few years.

Touched tongues and had mine touched. No big deal to me.

I have tried every variation there is.

I have been receiving kneeling at the altar rail for a while now since it came back, and I think doing so has increased/reaffirmed my belief in the real presence.

That makes it a little harder to do the bow mentioned in the GIRM though but I think kneeling is more reverent anyway.

 

[AMDG]

I recall that a friend sent me an article that included detailed instructions on how one priest gives out Communion-on-the-Tongue where he claimed that he had never had an accident. I looked for the article but couldn't seem to find it again (think it has something to do with me being in the OTHG? )

I did, however, find these:

Rethinking Communion in the Hand | Catholic-Pages.com

What Does The Prayer Really Say?Blog Archive Hand in Glove - 02: another Communion in the hand experiment

 

[Michie]

Of course nothing is foolproof. And of course, when these abuses happen, they are stopped. All I said was that abuse is easier (even unintended abuse) and that's why some don't like Communion in-the-hand. The question was not whether or not there is an indult allowing it along with Communion on-the-tongue.

So why was all this brought up then?

Why does everything have to turn into a hand versus tongue thing as if one is more holy than the other?

Thats my gripe.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So why was all this brought up then?

Why does everything have to turn into a hand versus tongue thing as if one is more holy than the other?

Thats my gripe.

Because there will always be people who want to show the world how holy they are, and that they're one above everyone else.

Some call it "spiritual pride." Its been around since religion was founded.

Jesus addressed it with the Pharises, who like to pray in public, making a spectical of themselves.

This is why I would prefer that the Pope make the mandate one way or the other, so that there is unity and no opportunity for showmanship.

Jim

 

[Michie]

Because there will always be people who want to show the world how holy they are, and that they're one above everyone else.

Some call it "spiritual pride." Its been around since religion was founded.

Jesus addressed it with the Pharises, who like to pray in public, making a spectical of themselves.

This is why I would prefer that the Pope make the mandate one way or the other, so that there is unity and no opportunity for showmanship.

Jim

I agree.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Hi seekyefirst.

 

[AMDG]

So why was all this brought up then?

Because a few pages back, it was asked why some continue to feel that Communion-on-the-tongue is better, when both Communion-on-the-tongue and the indult (Communion-in-the-hand) are allowed.

Forgot, another reason for the seeming preference of one over the other is because one is the universal norm (which cannot be legally refused by a Bishop) while the indult can (that's besides the reverence reason.)


Oh someone else suggested that the Pope make his preferences known. Well he has. Communion-on-the-tongue and he prefers it done kneeling.

 

[Michie]

Because a few pages back, it was asked why some continue to feel that Communion-on-the-tongue is better, when both Communion-on-the-tongue and the indult (Communion-in-the-hand) are allowed.

Forgot, another reason for the seeming preference of one over the other is because one is the universal norm (which cannot be legally refused by a Bishop) while the indult can (that's besides the reverence reason.)


Oh someone else suggested that the Pope make his preferences known. Well he has. Communion-on-the-tongue and he prefers it done kneeling.

Yes. He prefers that at the Vatican. But until he proclaims one or the other for the Church as a whole nobody has a right to look down their noses at thse that recieve by hand.

And I don't see the option changing anytime soon.

Until then, I'll recieve by hand.

 

[AMDG]

But until he proclaims one or the other for the Church as a whole

Like was said--one is the universal norm while the other is an indult granted to some countries--not all--and it can be rescinded.

So it looks like right now neither those who have chosen to Commune on-the-tongue and those chosing in-the-hand are not to be "looked down upon" and I'm afraid that in some areas of the U.S. those choosing to Commune-on-the-tongue are (even to the point of not teaching the children both methods of Communing as the Church insists), calling them "pre-Vatican II" (even if the timeline is wrong) and suggesting that they go to another church if they don't receive Communion (the modern way.) You know that in the U.S. those who do receive on-the-tongue seem to be "in the minority".

 

[Michie]

You can have the last word. I think taking communion is good. As I said, as long as it is in the right spirit & in line with the Church.

I don't see any reason to debate it. The thread is not about abuse. Just taking communion.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Because there will always be people who want to show the world how holy they are, and that they're one above everyone else.

Some call it "spiritual pride." Its been around since religion was founded.

Jesus addressed it with the Pharises, who like to pray in public, making a spectical of themselves.

This is why I would prefer that the Pope make the mandate one way or the other, so that there is unity and no opportunity for showmanship.

Jim

I don't think it's a pride issue for everybody... I don't receive on the tongue to "show off", but for other reasons.

 

[Michie]

But when you start trying to convince others by hand is less than...it turns into something else. I think only the Church has the authority to discuss these matters myself. Especially if they think by hand is inferior. When the Church offers the option, nobody has the right to make others feel bad for exercising that option when the Church offered it in the first place.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I think that those who receive in the hand are not less reverent, and I wouldn't want anyone to feel bad or guilty about it.. but that receiving on the tongue prevents certain abuses (or just the particles being left over on the hand..) and is preferrable for that reason. I'm sorry.. that's just my opinion though. I don't come up to people in church and tell them to receive on the tongue if the Church allows it, then it's allowed. But the way I see it, is that it's an indult to the universal law, which is receiving on the tongue. Those who receive in the hand are not being disobedient to the Church, they're not being irreverent, and they're not sinning. And those who receive in the 'traditional' way are not spiritually superior. But it's an indult, not the 'norm'. Also they did this experiment once where a person in a black glove held an unconsecrated Host..and they analyzed the glove and found that particles were left there. That worries me a bit.

So I won't tell people, to ONLY receive on the tongue, if the Church allows them to receive in the hand.

Nor do I consider myself "more holy".

But it does worry me to have to receive in the hand... which is what I have to do cause of the swine flu (the Bishop said). Maybe I'm wrong i don't know..

 

[Michie]

EMHC are required to use germ killer on their hands before distributing communion. And as I said earlier in this thread, recieving on the tongue in no way prevents abuse. We've read enough articles & seen enough YouTube videos to know that.

But I've said what I have to say. As long as the Church allows it it's really nobody's business. Let them fret if thats their choice.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I don't want to argue

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'd like to add a bit of a different take on this if I may.

When I was at my previous parish the carpet was replaced in the chancel. The Pastor found that just walking from the Altar to the rail would build up quite a charge. He would try to remember to ground himself to the microphone on the lectern before communing the first person at the rail. Before he got to the other end someone would invariably get zapped. Not just a little tickle either, it was audible even in the loft. It was discussed, and most, but not all started receiving on the hand.

Has any one else ever got zapped?

Mark.

 

[JoabAnias]

I'd like to add a bit of a different take on this if I may.

When I was at my previous parish the carpet was replaced in the chancel. The Pastor found that just walking from the Altar to the rail would build up quite a charge. He would try to remember to ground himself to the microphone on the lectern before communing the first person at the rail. Before he got to the other end someone would invariably get zapped. Not just a little tickle either, it was audible even in the loft. It was discussed, and most, but not all started receiving on the hand.

Has any one else ever got zapped?

Mark.

Nope, we have marble floors. The only church I have been in with a carpeted sacristy didn't had that problem. To much holy water around maybe.