Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue ?


<3 PopeFrancis

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Loves Pope Francis

(I love Pope Francis also.)

As I said, I am now sorry I posted my experience.  Why?  Although the event did happen, I see you think I am demeaning the gift of the Eucharist which we both treasure.  I see that Ampax thinks I am contributing to coarsening of dialogue.  (I suppose my posting of the legal definition of rape will only deepen Ampax's concern, but my when I said the incident was akin to rape, my belief has a basis in fact, not hyperbole.)

I would not share this experience again, primarily because I realize I assume this Forum comprises strangers (to me) who would, however, presume the good will of other posters.   That was a mistake (category error?) on my part. 

 

You're making this all about yourself. My post wasn't in response to you, and I assure you I wasn't even referring to you in it. Also, the crocodile tears really don't help your case. 

Anyway, like Peace, I'm out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McM RSCJ said:

 

You are correct, Peace, in that I was saying only that one instance was "akin to rape."   But I see that others object to my making that analogy.   Yet the legal definition of rape, remember, includes "vaginal, anal or oral penetration by a body part or an object."  No I do  not believe the priest's intent was in any way sexual, but we have learned rape is not a sex act, but an act of violence.  Right? 

 

 

This is wrong and misleading.  While oral penetration can constitute rape,  it would require genital-oral contact in every jurisdiction I'm aware of. 

I think your misuse of this term is insensitive and minimizes the experiences of men and women who truly have experienced sexual violation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Luigi said:

I know someone who was slapped (lightly) by a bishop when she tried to receive communion in the hand. This happened in a European country; the bishop was committed to re-instating communion on the tongue as standard practice in his diocese; the communicant was not from his diocese; when the communicant extended her hands, the bishop lightly slapped her cheek, so she would open her mouth.

The communicant had a very bad experience - shocked; surprised; caught off guard; shamed; sort of ruined that communion for her. Later that day, she overheard two people talking about the very same incident - they had witnessed it, and they were talking smugly about what a wonderful job the bishop had done of "showing her." She won't go back to that church and has little good to say about that bishop.

I find it disappointing when sacraments get infected with theological politics rather than the minister focusing on ministry. That goes for bishops, for extraordinary ministers who don't/won't/can't give communion on the tongue (or in the hand), and also for communicants who bring their own agenda to communion.

Not an excellent way to handle the situation, certainly. But it is his right as ordinary of the diocese to forbid reception in the hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oremus Pro Invicem
21 hours ago, Peace said:

Amen to that brother.

Nope. Sorry. The Church does not teach this. I think this is a common misunderstanding.

There is plenty of stuff online that explains the actual manner in which Jesus is present in the Eucharist, but here is a good one that explains it:

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/only-difference-between-christs-body-in.html?m=1

Thanks for the links and correction.  

Kneeling is still the preferred posture, when possible, to show reverence to our Eucharistic Lord.  And there is nothing which states we should not show the same reverence toward Christ in the Eucharist as we would if we saw Him in His bodily form. 

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html?m=1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crocodile tears, Ampax??  I admit I'm lost. 

Sounds like Quasar is a lawyer or lawyer trained, so if Quasar says oral rape has to be genital-oral (and that makes sense--and would distinguish genital--any other implement like a fist or broomstick, then I stand corrected in my analogy.

But I know I was violated by that priest.  And I know how it affected me.  Not for a moment.  For years.   Period.  Full-stop.  And 1) I do not believe his actions had anything to do with the Gospel.  No one on this Forum has answered whether this was priest was Christ-like or acting "in persona Christi."  I know he was not.

Again, I apologize for bringing this incident up because 1) it obviously offended people on this forum in ways I did not anticipate as though I were demeaning the Eucharist.  But the incident happened. And I know the reforms of the Church in Vatican II permitting us to take and eat are rooted in the Gospel and serve other worthy human and Catholic values. 

Over and out.

 

 

Edited by McM RSCJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Not an excellent way to handle the situation, certainly. But it is his right as ordinary of the diocese to forbid reception in the hand.

He could also make that known to people in his church. Mass isn't a private club. Anyone could be there any day - even people who receive communion in the hand and think that's a permissible thing to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Luigi said:

He could also make that known to people in his church. Mass isn't a private club. Anyone could be there any day - even people who receive communion in the hand and think that's a permissible thing to do. 

Absolutely. Should be handled with sensitivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<3 PopeFrancis
16 hours ago, Luigi said:

He could also make that known to people in his church. Mass isn't a private club. Anyone could be there any day - even people who receive communion in the hand and think that's a permissible thing to do. 

 

16 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Absolutely. Should be handled with sensitivity.

Sweet.:saint2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<3 PopeFrancis
On 9/6/2016 at 4:54 PM, <3 PopeFrancis said:

 

Sweet.:saint2:

It would also help the communicants receive Him the reverent way

the most reverent way within the laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...