Should I not be receiving Communion in the hand?

[PhuturePriest]

5 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

 

There's a "right" and a "wrong" knee? I mean, I know there's a right one. I just didn't know there's a wrong one.

There's technically a "right" and "wrong" knee, and it's for a specific reason.

In olden times, when you genuflected before a king, you would genuflect with your right knee forward. We genuflect before God with our left knee forward, because it's something we reserve solely for him. I'm pretty sure the reason why is the knees were considered a place of strength, so by genuflecting you were relinquishing your strength in the first place, and since most people are right-handed, genuflecting with the right knee to the ground is considered more humble, but don't take that last part as absolutely true.

[Gabriela]

25 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

There's technically a "right" and "wrong" knee, and it's for a specific reason.

In olden times, when you genuflected before a king, you would genuflect with your right knee forward. We genuflect before God with our left knee forward, because it's something we reserve solely for him. I'm pretty sure the reason why is the knees were considered a place of strength, so by genuflecting you were relinquishing your strength in the first place, and since most people are right-handed, genuflecting with the right knee to the ground is considered more humble, but don't take that last part as absolutely true.

So am I a bad Catholic if I use whichever knee is closer to the pew?  

[Not A Real Name]

I don't understand how receiving communion should be up to how we feel. Shouldn't we be concerned about our Eucharistic Lord and what happens to Him? I've never seen one Catholic able to show that communion in the hand gives less risk of dropping our Eucharistic Lord than communion on the tongue.  Is how we feel more important than protecting Christ? 

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, Gabriela said:

So am I a bad Catholic if I use whichever knee is closer to the pew?  

No. It just means you give God the same deference you do to man.

But really. I don't know why you would do that, on the pragmatic level, especially given that it has a purpose and it's not just something we do for funsies.

I think the real question is whether we should excommunicate someone if they genuflect right-knee forward while receiving the Eucharist in the hand.

[Gabriela]

4 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

No. It just means you give God the same deference you do to man.

But really. I don't know why you would do that, on the pragmatic level, especially given that it has a purpose and it's not just something we do for funsies.

I think the real question is whether we should excommunicate someone if they genuflect right-knee forward while receiving the Eucharist in the hand.

When I genuflect, good sir, I genuflect deeply, resting all my weight on my knee, bowing my head, closing my eyes, and remaining so until I've completed a slow and consciously made sign of the cross, only after which is 100% completed will I lift my head, open my eyes, and begin to rise again. I literally come to rest on the floor for several moments. People look at me as if I've just copped a squat on the church floor. There's none of this "tap the floor quickly with your knee and throw your fingertips around your body wildly so you can move on as quickly as possible" croutons for me. So I use whichever knee is most comfortable to use, cuz when I genuflect, I'm there for a while.

If a careless genuflecter has the presumption to receive in the hand while immodestly dressed, not singing the hymns, and chatting with companions, then by all means, anathema sit. And good riddance.

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, Gabriela said:

When I genuflect, good sir, I genuflect deeply, resting all my weight on my knee, bowing my head, closing my eyes, and remaining so until I've completed a slow and consciously made sign of the cross, only after which is 100% completed will I lift my head, open my eyes, and begin to rise again. I literally come to rest on the floor for several moments. People look at me as if I've just copped a squat on the church floor. There's none of this "tap the floor quickly with your knee and throw your fingertips around your body wildly so you can move on as quickly as possible" croutons for me. So I use whichever knee is most comfortable to use, cuz when I genuflect, I'm there for a while.

If a careless genuflecter has the presumption to receive in the hand while immodestly dressed, not singing the hymns, and chatting with companions, then by all means, anathema sit. And good riddance.

I daresay Pope Francis is going to come out at any moment to infallibly declare that I just got served.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Not A Real Name said:

I find this image so disturbing that I really hope a Mediator of Meh will delete it.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Gabriela

[Ice_nine]

I think it's supposed to be disturbing. Is it more disturbing of any other imagery of Christ crucified? I don't think the image is irreverent as much as it's commenting on irreverence.

[veritasluxmea]

I sympathize with the message, but it's pretty creepy tbh  

[Not A Real Name]

7 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think it's supposed to be disturbing. Is it more disturbing of any other imagery of Christ crucified? I don't think the image is irreverent as much as it's commenting on irreverence.

Thank you for understanding why I posted it. When a particle of the Eucharist falls to the ground the above picture is what is really happening. I think the picture shows why the method of receiving should not be up to our own feelings, but rather take into account Who it is we are receiving and how we treat Him.

 

[PhuturePriest]

Keep in mind particles can still drop when receiving on the tongue, and in my experience I've had more issues with the host almost being dropped whilst receiving on the tongue than the hand ( and I've especially had a lot of practical issues when it comes to intinction, leading me to dislike the practice as a whole, but that's an entirely different issue). All the particle debate really points to is why we need to use patins rather than why we need to receive on the tongue. If falling particles are the issue, all we need is to make hosts which are more cohesive, and make trash bin sized patins that will catch all particles that fall anyway. If falling particles are what we center the debate on, it simply boils down to how to make particles not fall off the host.

If we're going to debate posture during reception, it must center around which position is most objectively reverent. And once we have found that, if there should be exceptions to the rule.

[Basilisa Marie]

 

Why not use something like this?

If we're really concerned with every tiniest particle, why not vacuum seal the Eucharist?  Use chiclet hosts? 

Why not use one of those contraptions to squirt the Precious Blood directly into our mouths so that there's even less of a chance of anything getting anywhere except our mouths? I'm sure we could coat the inside with gold. 

I'm being a bit over the top but honestly, where do you think we need to draw the line? Does the donut you have right after Mass offend Jesus because you're still digesting him in your stomach? Why not just take the agape meal theology out of the Eucharist entirely? If we're so scrupulous with every teeniest particle to the point where we shame people with drawings of people stomping over the crucified Lord then honestly why not just go back to ocular communion for the faithful. 

Proper care and reverence need to be taken and in many places aren't taken but GIVE ME A BREAK.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Basilisa Marie

[Gabriela]

9 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think it's supposed to be disturbing. Is it more disturbing of any other imagery of Christ crucified? I don't think the image is irreverent as much as it's commenting on irreverence.

 

2 hours ago, Not A Real Name said:

Thank you for understanding why I posted it. When a particle of the Eucharist falls to the ground the above picture is what is really happening. I think the picture shows why the method of receiving should not be up to our own feelings, but rather take into account Who it is we are receiving and how we treat Him.

 

I totally get the message of the picture and why you posted it, Not A Real Name. It's just so disturbing that I find it really painful to look at.

[Not A Real Name]

2 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

 

Why not use something like this?

 

If we're really concerned with every tiniest particle, why not vacuum seal the Eucharist?  Use chiclet hosts? 

Why not use one of these contraptions to squirt the Precious Blood directly into our mouths so that there's even less of a chance of anything getting anywhere except our mouths? I'm sure we could coat the inside with gold. 

I'm being a bit over the top but honestly, where do you think we need to draw the line? Does the donut you have right after Mass offend Jesus because you're still digesting him in your stomach? Why not just take the agape meal theology out of the Eucharist entirely? If we're so scrupulous with every teeniest particle to the point where we shame people with drawings of people stomping over the crucified Lord then honestly why not just go back to ocular communion for the faithful. 

Proper care and reverence need to be taken and in many places aren't taken but GIVE ME A BREAK.

I don't understand why you're being like this? What I've mentioned is not over the top and neither is my concern for dropping particles of the Eucharist. I find it funny that you try to paint my concern as being extreme or of a scrupulous nature, even when you yourself finish your rant with- "Proper care and reverence need to be taken and in many places aren't taken"- which is the sum of what I'm saying.  Is it because you end with a vague statement about proper care and reverence which is why you're not seen as extreme? What is proper care and reverence to you? To me, if communion in the hand is to be done, would mean proper care should be the use of a paten under the communicant's hands and that the communicant should check for particles to ensure, to the best of their ability, that nothing is lost.  For communion on the tongue I also believe the paten should be used and place under the communicant's chin to ensure no particles are lost.  Sound extreme to you?

[Gabriela]

17 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

If we're so scrupulous with every teeniest particle to the point where we shame people with drawings of people stomping over the crucified Lord then honestly why not just go back to ocular communion for the faithful.

I really hope you're not saying I was shaming anyone.

[Basilisa Marie]

Just now, Not A Real Name said:

To me, if communion in the hand is to be done, would mean proper care should be the use of a paten under the communicant's hands and that the communicant should check for particles to ensure, to the best of their ability, that nothing is lost.  For communion on the tongue I also believe the paten should be used and place under the communicant's chin to ensure no particles are lost.  Sound extreme to you?

What you say here isn't extreme, it's reasonable. The drawing makes you sound more extreme.  

[Not A Real Name]

7 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I really hope you're not saying I was shaming anyone.

She's addressing her remarks to me. She wants to paint me as an extremist or bully because my views on the lack of reverence and care I beleive is shown to our Eucharist Lord in the current way most recive Him in their hands.  However, the above picture though shouldn't be shaming anyone who is doing all they can to ensure proper care and reverence be shown to Christ when the recieve Him, whether receiving in the hand or on the tongue.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[Basilisa Marie]

5 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I really hope you're not saying I was shaming anyone.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the drawing is obviously propaganda against receiving communion in the hand. Look at the pool of blood by the priest's feet. It's mean to scare people into receiving a certain way. 

[Not A Real Name]

1 minute ago, Basilisa Marie said:

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the drawing is obviously propaganda against receiving communion in the hand. Look at the pool of blood by the priest's feet. It's mean to scare people into receiving a certain way. 

It's meant to draw attention to what is happening when all of us are careless with communion in the hand. There is no paten present and no care taken, by the priest nor the communicant, to reduce the risk of Christ being dropped all over the place. This is a serious issue and I feel the picture shows the seriousness.  

[Nihil Obstat]

On 4/3/2016, 11:20:48, Nihil Obstat said:

 I can see this thread deteriorating if I get involved, so I will not. 

Whoops.  Someone convinced me otherwise.