Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed?

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1343687923' post='2460418']
Was this in the diocese? Ughhhh people are ridiculous.
[/quote]

Yupper. I wasn't too thrilled ... neither was the other young person at my table (he was like maybe in his late 20's or early 30's). We both laughed at the presenter...I know, not to mature. But hey.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1343704056' post='2460520']
Yupper. I wasn't too thrilled ... neither was the other young person at my table (he was like maybe in his late 20's or early 30's). We both laughed at the presenter...I know, not to mature. But hey.
[/quote]

I meant "not too mature" oops

[Amppax]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1343691119' post='2460440']
Actually, a good leader will often acquiesce to an initially disobedient practice in order to avoid undermining his own (practical) authority. If standing firm will mean that those under you will continue flagrantly to disobey you, it's often better just formally to approve of the practice so that disobedience won't become a precedent.
[/quote]

WAT?

By that logic, the Church should be fine with contraception.

[Amory]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1343699094' post='2460485']
Plenty of popular things remain illegal. The Great Depression at least accelerated the case for repeal of the 18th. The government couldn't afford to enforce prohibition, there weren't enough jobs to replace those lost during prohibition, and all law-abiding parties missed the income from alcohol sales.
[/quote]

I don't disagree with you at all here. The end of Prohibition was multi-factorial.

One of the main arguments used by anti-Prohibitionists, however, was that it was causing the people to have disrespect for the laws and the Constitution. And I think that they were right. There would not be nearly as great respect for the Constitution as there is now if its 18th amendment were still in force. Remember, many of the most ardent constitutionalists are also avid consumers of alcohol.

[Amory]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1343709112' post='2460536']
WAT?

By that logic, the Church should be fine with contraception.
[/quote]

No. Contraception, Paul VI believed (as I do), was a matter of immutable doctrine. The particular manner of receiving Communion, he clearly thought (as I do), was a matter of changeable discipline. Paul VI didn't believe he could allow dissent from the Church's historical position on contraception, but he did believe he could give permission for the hitherto illicit reception of Communion in the hand to continue.

Not all disciplines are created equal, of course. Inasmuch as a discipline is approved by the Universal Church, it isn't wrong. That doesn't mean, however, that there can be certain benefits with one particular discipline.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343690436' post='2460433']
I don't see the Church deciding to change something just because the laity goes ahead and does it without permission.
[/quote]
What actually happened was the Paul VI issued Memoriale Domini on the subject at a time when not many were actually receiving in the hand. In his document the pope made it clear that he had surveyed bishops throughout the world and the majority agreed the manner of distributing communion should not be changed. However, the document allowed that bishops' conferences could petition the Apostolic See for permission if "a contrary practice prevailed". The Canadian bishops then decided in 1969 to ask for permission even though the practice was not widespread in Canada. What happened next is: "Permission for Communion in the hand was eventually granted to the Canadian bishops on several strict conditions, including that "the new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice."[sup]8[/sup] The Canadian bishops nonetheless advised its instructors of the new practice to provide the faithful with only the "good reasons which justify the introduction of the new rite."[sup]9[/sup] While not explicitly forbidden Communion on the tongue, the faithful — especially first communicants and converts — were "encouraged to receive the Eucharistic Bread on the flat palm of the hand"
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616"]http://www.catholicc...cfm?recnum=8616[/url]

Paul VI argued strongly against communion in the hand in "Memoriale Domini". It is quite incorrect that he regarded merely as "changeable discipline". He was not at all neutral on the subject:
"This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in "ordinary bread and wine"[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which "The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father."[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually."[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: "What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members."[10]"
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm[/url]


S.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Skinzo

[Amppax]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1343713879' post='2460550']
No. Contraception, Paul VI believed (as I do), was a matter of immutable doctrine. The particular manner of receiving Communion, he clearly thought (as I do), was a matter of changeable discipline. Paul VI didn't believe he could allow dissent from the Church's historical position on contraception, but he did believe he could give permission for the hitherto illicit reception of Communion in the hand to continue.

Not all disciplines are created equal, of course. Inasmuch as a discipline is approved by the Universal Church, it isn't wrong. That doesn't mean, however, that there can be certain benefits with one particular discipline.
[/quote]

Yeah I know that. Sorry, I was trolling a tad bit.

However, I still second Red's earlier sentiment.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Amppax

[fides' Jack]

After giving this more careful consideration last night, I had to remove my props from the original post. I did so because, while the intent of the speaker in the video is good, he's missing a basic idea that is not found in his video - obedience. I have 3 reasons for thinking so:[list=1]
[*]He deliberately tells people to disobey their priests - a BIG no no! This should have been the only red flag I needed, but somehow it slipped past me originally.

[*]He shows 2 different kinds of Mass images - EF images and clown Mass images. This insinuates that he sees non-EF Masses as all clown Masses, which is the general prideful attitude that I've found cultivated at strictly EF (such as FSSP) parishes. The proof of this can be found in #1.

[*]He keeps using himself as an example; i.e. "Look at me", and "I started doing it, and then other people followed...". Just another sign of misplaced pride, which has led to his disobedient attitude.
[/list]
He's exactly right, though, in that we don't act like we believe.

*Edited for typo

Edited July 31, 2012 by fides' Jack

[Lisa]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343701176' post='2460498']
I'm not sure on this one. I remember once hearing about a Priest putting the Chalice on the altar and letting the people attending walk up and take the hosts out and receive them themselves. This is obviously very bad on many accounts and the Dominican Priest who was told this did not appear to be a happy clam about it. I don't think I would say it is a central teaching that people are not allowed to do this, but it is definitely important for people not to and I do not think the Church would ever allow this.
[/quote]

This is different than the manner of receiving in the hand or on the tongue. When priests are receiving the Eucharist, they can physically pick it up and take it from the ciborium without hearing "the body of Christ" from another person. (They pray the "Body of Christ, bring me safely to eternal life" *paraphrased)

For lay people, whether receiving on the tongue or in the hand, either way it is placed there and they are told about "who it is." Some people could argue that the hand involves more active reception, but that is still very different than reaching in and grabbing it for themselves from the altar.

[fides' Jack]

And, actually, FP is wrong. It's either in the GIRM or in the Code of Canon Law - lay persons are not allowed to take the Eucharist themselves. They must be given it by an Ordinary/Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

[cmotherofpirl]

The bottom line is the Church permits it, therefore you may not like it or do it, but you can't condemn it. It is a discipline that the Church changes as She sees fit.

[Amory]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343771366' post='2460845']
The bottom line is the Church permits it, therefore you may not like it or do it, but you can't condemn it.[/quote]

I don't think it's condemning a discipline to say that maybe there could be greater benefit in discontinuing it.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343771366' post='2460845']
It is a discipline that the Church changes as She sees fit.
[/quote]

And, of course, the Holy See very well may see fit to change it due to reasoning and persuasion that bishops, priests, and laity alike have offered in favor of restoring Communion on the tongue alone.

The Church does not err, but there is always room for reform of her disciplines. After all, many Church disciplines would have never originated to begin with if someone wouldn't have had the bright idea, "Maybe we should do things this way."

[Papist]

[img]http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/attachments/f21/33188d1302130092-molly-dee-how-i-love-you-let-me-count-ways-troll-b-gone.jpg[/img]

[Hubertus]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343746277' post='2460603']
After giving this more careful consideration last night, I had to remove my props from the original post. I did so because, while the intent of the speaker in the video is good, he's missing a basic idea that is not found in his video - obedience. I have 3 reasons for thinking so:[list=1]
[*]He deliberately tells people to disobey their priests - a BIG no no! This should have been the only red flag I needed, but somehow it slipped past me originally.

[*]He shows 2 different kinds of Mass images - EF images and clown Mass images. This insinuates that he sees non-EF Masses as all clown Masses, which is the general prideful attitude that I've found cultivated at strictly EF (such as FSSP) parishes. The proof of this can be found in #1.

[*]He keeps using himself as an example; i.e. "Look at me", and "I started doing it, and then other people followed...". Just another sign of misplaced pride, which has led to his disobedient attitude.
[/list]
He's exactly right, though, in that we don't act like we believe.

*Edited for typo
[/quote]
It's been a while since I've watched the video.. Where was he telling people to be disobedient?

Also, I don't think self-righteousness applies to these scenarios. If someone were self-righteous about what they were doing, they wouldn't be trying to convince others to do it, because then they wouldn't have the chance to appear righteous. Right?

[Hubertus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343771366' post='2460845']
The bottom line is the Church permits it, therefore you may not like it or do it, but you can't condemn it. It is a discipline that the Church changes as She sees fit.
[/quote]
But can we not say, "But this is better"?

We aren't saying that receiving Communion in the hand is a sin or anything. As I mentioned earlier, I receive in the hand sometimes under certain circumstances. I don't feel like I've offended God because, yes, the Church does permit it. But I do still think that receiving on the tongue in general is just a better thing for us to do.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343746277' post='2460603']
After giving this more careful consideration last night, I had to remove my props from the original post. I did so because, while the intent of the speaker in the video is good, he's missing a basic idea that is not found in his video - obedience. I have 3 reasons for thinking so:[list=1]
[*]He deliberately tells people to disobey their priests - a BIG no no! This should have been the only red flag I needed, but somehow it slipped past me originally.

[*]He shows 2 different kinds of Mass images - EF images and clown Mass images. This insinuates that he sees non-EF Masses as all clown Masses, which is the general prideful attitude that I've found cultivated at strictly EF (such as FSSP) parishes. The proof of this can be found in #1.

[*]He keeps using himself as an example; i.e. "Look at me", and "I started doing it, and then other people followed...". Just another sign of misplaced pride, which has led to his disobedient attitude.
[/list]
He's exactly right, though, in that we don't act like we believe.

*Edited for typo
[/quote]

You're wrong on all three counts.

1) Priests do not have the right to forbid the laity to receive on the tongue. The laity do not have to obey or rather be forced to take communion on the hand if they choose to receive on the tongue. The priests that would force such a thing must be obedient to the Church.

2) He only shows one image of a clown mass, and one image of a cookie mass. There is only a few videos/moving images of an EF Mass. The only ones I can feel for sure is the one at the beginning, and the one with Pio Padre which could have also just as easily been a OF Mass. But most you can't really tell if they are EF or OF forms of the Mass. Most seem to be Adoration Chapels that could be at a EF or OF parish. There are also a number of clips and images of Papal Masses which are OF Masses.
Also accusing someone of pride (let alone whole parishes) as you have done is a very serious charge. One should have more evidence to accuse someone of it other than some filler slideshow images. It is counterproductive because it can be, and rightfully so, viewed as hypocritical.

3) He isn't saying 'look at me look at me I'm so holy do what I do.' He mentions that when he started to receive on the tongue he found that others follow suite. But it is a brief mention, and it should not be viewed in the negative light you've put on it.

Edited August 1, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Papist]

There's a lot of conjecture all over this thread.

[Ice_nine]

I think receiving on the tongue while kneeling is probably the most reverent way.


Well, this is God we're talking about. So crawling and prostrating yourself would perhaps be the most reverent, but the time that would take . . .


I compromise by genuflecting before I receive on the tongue. There's only like one person I"ve seen at my parish who kneels while receiving, and he always last in line, probs so he doesn't get ppl all mad for causing an extra 2 second delay. At least that's what my thought process is. I feel to whimpy to do it. Shame

But yeah just more conjecture from this end over here. I think we all can agree that the Jesus in the Eucharist deserves MUCH more respect than He has been generally given.

[mortify]

Communion in the hand is permitted because the Apostolic Authority has been severely weakened and belief in the real presence dimished.

[KnightofChrist]

Can a bishop (or priest) prohibit receiving Communion on the tongue?

Source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-bishop-prohibit-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue

Full Question

Recently I was attending Mass in another diocese, and when I approached the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist to receive on the tongue, I was denied Communion. Not wanting to make a scene, but fairly confident of my rights, I whispered that I can receive this way. The minister apologized but said that the bishop does not permit Communion on the tongue. How can this be?

Answer

The universal law of the Latin rite is that we receive Communion on the tongue. To receive in the hand is an indult or special permission that does not exist in most parts of the world. By law, it is a right of the faithful to receive on the tongue, and the faithful must not have their rights denied.

The Vatican promotes Communion on the tongue not only for its long tradition but because it "expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist" and "removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species" (Memorial Domini 1277).

Read More: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-bishop-prohibit-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue