Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue ?

[hotpink]

2 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

It perhaps is.  Kneeling, in my opinion, is a form of submission to Our Lord.  Many would this form to be as efficacious as possible within the Diocesan permission.

But again, the Catholic Church cannot just change decades of meaning because they feel like it.  The type of submission that kneeling generally invokes today has little to do with the emotion the CC is trying to convey.  The message is not one of 50 shades/slavery/school shootings rather a submission of complete and total love.  Culturally standing is the closest thing we have.

[McM RSCJ]

As I told you when you accused me of heresy, I am a Religious for more than fifty years I good standing,  I am in full ministry.  And I am, as my screen name reveals rather than hides, a Religious of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  (I think it is "interesting" you do not recall accusing me of heresy, because I would assume one would remember making a charge like that.)

What I describe happened to me.  If you need names, dates, et cetera, I can provide.  

But the important point is my request that folks on this forum not constantly reaffirm one another in a very narrow view of Catholicism, the calls of the Church and the needs of the world. Let us listen to Pope Francis and go out from our preconceptions of a Church that sits in judgment and hurl stones from on high.

I am happy for you if you have never been badly treated by priests certain they were right, regardless. 

For me, what I described was one day.  But it was abusive, painful (physically) and demeaning.  He saw my hands open, but he forced the host into my mouth.

And, Maximilianus, whoever you are, is BOOM your response to another person's painful experience? Any empathy?

Is anyone on this website willing to entertain the possibility there are good reasons, Scriptural and otherwise sensitive to respect for Human Dignity, the first principle of Catholic Social Teaching, for the Church's reform of the mode of receiving Eucharist, in Vatican II?  

It seems I find here a deliberate effort to circle the wagons, rule out that point of view, celebrate pious practices, and hold to the view that Vatican II was wrong, it is only a matter of time that kneeling, receiving on the tongue will not only be re-Instated, but exalted.  I have been in several countries where the Church is growing in Africa and Asia--and I think that view is so out of touch with the Church world-wide as to not fanciful, but delusional.  The harvest is great.  Laborer so are few.  And communion on the tongue rather than in the hand is not a burning priority unless some Prelate makes it so.

I shared an instance that a) happened b) was done unto me c) was absolutely wrong and close to brutal d) that holds within it the elements the Church knew needed to be reformed.

[Nihil Obstat]

Not interested, thanks.

[hotpink]

15 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

As I told you when you accused me of heresy, I am a Religious for more than fifty years I good standing,  I am in full ministry.  And I am, as my screen name reveals rather than hides, a Religious of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  (I think it is "interesting" you do not recall accusing me of heresy, because I would assume one would remember making a charge like that.)

What I describe happened to me.  If you need names, dates, et cetera, I can provide.  

But the important point is my request that folks on this forum not constantly reaffirm one another in a very narrow view of Catholicism, the calls of the Church and the needs of the world. Let us listen to Pope Francis and go out from our preconceptions of a Church that sits in judgment and hurl stones from on high.

I am happy for you if you have never been badly treated by priests certain they were right, regardless. 

For me, what I described was one day.  But it was abusive, painful (physically) and demeaning.  He saw my hands open, but he forced the host into my mouth.

And, Maximilianus, whoever you are, is BOOM your response to another person's painful experience? Any empathy?

Is anyone on this website willing to entertain the possibility there are good reasons, Scriptural and otherwise sensitive to respect for Human Dignity, the first principle of Catholic Social Teaching, for the Church's reform of the mode of receiving Eucharist, in Vatican II?  

It seems I find here a deliberate effort to circle the wagons, rule out that point of view, celebrate pious practices, and hold to the view that Vatican II was wrong, it is only a matter of time that kneeling, receiving on the tongue will not only be re-Instated, but exalted.  I have been in several countries where the Church is growing in Africa and Asia--and I think that view is so out of touch with the Church world-wide as to not fanciful, but delusional.  The harvest is great.  Laborer so are few.  And communion on the tongue rather than in the hand is not a burning priority unless some Prelate makes it so.

I shared an instance that a) happened b) was done unto me c) was absolutely wrong and close to brutal d) that holds within it the elements the Church knew needed to be reformed.

Chill out.  You've had what...3? People reply?  Coming off so strong is just going to make you look so defensive like you have something to hide.  You could of just left it as you were violated during the Eucharist.  That priest did the wrong thing.  You have no more right to argue for communion in the hand only than a person has to argue against alter servers under age 18 because of a few pedifile priests.  I both cases only the guilty should be punished.

 

 I have different reasons for disliking tounge communion...some of which you might take note of before trying to insert a one off anacdote as a universal fact, however disgusting it was.

[Gabriela]

31 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

As I told you when you accused me of heresy, I am a Religious for more than fifty years I good standing,  I am in full ministry.  And I am, as my screen name reveals rather than hides, a Religious of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  (I think it is "interesting" you do not recall accusing me of heresy, because I would assume one would remember making a charge like that.)

What I describe happened to me.  If you need names, dates, et cetera, I can provide.  

But the important point is my request that folks on this forum not constantly reaffirm one another in a very narrow view of Catholicism, the calls of the Church and the needs of the world. Let us listen to Pope Francis and go out from our preconceptions of a Church that sits in judgment and hurl stones from on high.

I am happy for you if you have never been badly treated by priests certain they were right, regardless. 

For me, what I described was one day.  But it was abusive, painful (physically) and demeaning.  He saw my hands open, but he forced the host into my mouth.

And, Maximilianus, whoever you are, is BOOM your response to another person's painful experience? Any empathy?

Is anyone on this website willing to entertain the possibility there are good reasons, Scriptural and otherwise sensitive to respect for Human Dignity, the first principle of Catholic Social Teaching, for the Church's reform of the mode of receiving Eucharist, in Vatican II?  

It seems I find here a deliberate effort to circle the wagons, rule out that point of view, celebrate pious practices, and hold to the view that Vatican II was wrong, it is only a matter of time that kneeling, receiving on the tongue will not only be re-Instated, but exalted.  I have been in several countries where the Church is growing in Africa and Asia--and I think that view is so out of touch with the Church world-wide as to not fanciful, but delusional.  The harvest is great.  Laborer so are few.  And communion on the tongue rather than in the hand is not a burning priority unless some Prelate makes it so.

I shared an instance that a) happened b) was done unto me c) was absolutely wrong and close to brutal d) that holds within it the elements the Church knew needed to be reformed.

Just because you put RSCJ in your screen name doesn't mean everyone is going to buy you're a religious. I, for one, do not. At all. Especially an RSCJ. Those women are highly educated and your writing is frequently... tragic. You come off as a very suspicious character and probably not many of us believe you are who you say you are. It's the interwebz. It ain't all true.

Oh, and there are religious heretics. Lots of them.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

Let us listen to Pope Francis and go out from our preconceptions of a Church that sits in judgment and hurl stones from on high.

 

Where posture and receiving Holy Communion is concerned, in most diocese I know of, options are presented.  Personally, I always obey what The Church has to say over my own personal conclusions and where I am given a choice, I take up my personal preference.  Personal preferences are quite normal, but why attempt  to impose one's own preferences as superior over another's?

Probably every posture and means of receiving Holy Communion has sound and quite reverent and holy motivations and reasons as the motivation and reason.  And if the motivation is neither reverent nor holy, then one may as well not receive at all.

And if the motivation is partly physical (reverence and holy motivation remain), then to me it is a sound reason - while a person with a physical problem cannot then impose their choice )because of the physical problem) on to others.

Certainly, the USCCB has pointed out that the choice should be that of the one receiving alone.

Why is it that in these types of threads, exchanges can descend to the negative personal attack rather than staying on the subject?  One does need a thick skin rather often in some threads.

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Kateri89]

This whole debate brings to mind the passage from The Screwtape Letters where Screwtape writes to Wormwood about how Christians pray.  "At the very least, they can be persuaded that the bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls”.

 

Just food for thought.  Also, on a side note, if you have not read The Screwtape Letters then get yourself to a bookstore or library pronto.  One of the best books I've ever read and little passages like the one above always seem to come back to me when I'm in conversation with someone.

[McM RSCJ]

Gabriela, I am a Religious of the Sacred Heart. If you would like me to prove that to you, please let me know how.  (And, yes, I am "highly educated" but I consider myself a learner, in terms of responding to the Gospel and the needs of the Church.)

I don't know what you mean when you say my writing is tragic.  I don't know what in my character you find suspicious.  I don't share the views of some folks on this forum.  Is that is what is suspicious or tragic?

Hotpink, I was not offering an anecdote as a universal fact.  However, to take your example seriously, the Church in the United States did not eliminate young kids as altar servers in the wake of the Pedophile crisis but did mandate important and obligatory reforms and changes in response.  For example, a priest, nun, or any lay adult working for the Church may no longer be alone with a child altar-server.  Good rule!  Doors can't be closed, must have window panels, etc.  All for the best.  So, yes, I am saying some practices are problematic.  And even if no one else on this forum posts concerns about the problematic aspects of Communion on the tongue as normative or obligatory, I have done so.  And I am not alone in thinking this way.

Moreover, I have been saying that there are good reasons the Church changed the manner of receiving Communion, that these reasons accord with Scripture and respect for human dignity, in response to those on the forum who insist a) the practice never changed; or b) the practice should not have changed or c) receiving while kneeling and on the tongue is holier, more reverent, preferable d) the Church is on the verge of requiring this practice--and should do so,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

COMMON QUESTIONS ON LITURGICAL NORMS

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum, answers common questions on liturgical norms, as published by ZENIT, the international news agency reporting from Rome.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/LITURIND.HTM

(I'll leave it up to the interested to chase up relevant answers if they wish)

 

 

15 minutes ago, Kateri89 said:

"At the very least, they can be persuaded that the bodily position makes no difference to their prayers; for they constantly forget, what you must always remember, that they are animals and that whatever their bodies do affects their souls”.

Important too to remember that one bodily position might be very meaningful to one person and yet a different posture just as or more meaningful to another.  Certainly to me if one takes up a mandate of The Church out of obedience more than personal preference, obedience is a powerful virtue.  Every Mass we attend, we pray The Credo and when we prayerfully state before God that "I believe in The Holy Catholic Ch8urch" that includes Her teaching authority.
 

Quote

Obedience is a virtue because it calls on us to obey even when we think we know better.  It requires self-denial.  When I stop at the red light because I think it’s a good idea to do so, I’m not exercising that virtue.  When I stop at red even though, in my opinion, I could safely cross the intersection and it seems stupid to have this light out in the middle of nowhere anyway . . . I’m practicing the virtue of obedience.  When my son turns off the computer and goes to bed despite his parents’ obvious senility on matters concerning computers and bedtimes, he’s being virtuous.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jenniferfitz/2014/04/why-is-obedience-a-virtue/

 

Catholic Culture Dictionary https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35196

OBEDIENCE - Definition

The moral virtue that inclines the will to comply with the will of another who has the right to command. Material obedience is merely to carry out the physical action commanded; formal obedience is to perform an action precisely because it is commanded by a legitimate superior. The extent of obedience is as wide as the authority of the person who commands. Thus obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is limited by higher laws that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders. As a virtue, it is pleasing to God because it means the sacrifice of one's will out of love for God. (Etym. Latin obedientia, obedience.)

 

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

2 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

 Scripture says:. Take and eat. Take is an active and egalitarian verb.  Trads cannot get around that. Take does not mean kneel, open your mouth, and stick out your tongue.

Moreover, none of the so-called "Trads" on this website appear willing to contemplate what it might mean to have the host shoved into one's mouth, when one is a woman, when the woman objects, and when the priest who knows better is, of course, male, and when the act causes severe pain.

I know what that is like.  And it is akin to oral rape.  Oral rape.  I do not say this lightly.  Bishop Schneider, with all your obsessions about irreverence to the host, please come listen to me.

i developed large cysts in my salivary glands, under my tongue.  These cysts grew at a great rate.  They quickly filled my mouth,  The doctor removed them surgically.  They grew right back.  My second oral surgery therefore required deeper surgery and "open" packing of the wounds, more than four yards of packing stuffed into the opening for ten days.  The smell was horrible. And the pain was terrible.  Only really close friends sat close to me when the odor was so strong.  I could only take liquid nourishment those long days.  Turns out you can put anything in a blender and swallow it, if you have to.  Meanwhile, the pain was unrelenting.  I was an elected delegate to my Religious' Order's Provincial Chapter.  I made my contributions, muffled, as best I could, over a microphone.  

Then came the Sunday Liturgy.  It was celebrated by a "trad" Monsignor, so certain he was protecting the Eucharist.

I put out my hands to receive the host.  He knew better.  He had his principles to uphold.  He shoved the host into my mouth.  I can still feel the pain and the violation.

Reverence?  The "better way"?  

No.

So all of you who are so convinced that "take and eat" means subservience, kneeling, women subordinated to men, and receiving Communion on the tongue, even if that means forcible penetration of a communicant's mouth against her/his will, I beg you to acknowledge other elements than your pious predispositions envision.  Start with these two questions:  

1)  What do you picture Jesus did, when he broke the bread and offered:  Take and eat.  Where they all kneeling?  Tongues out?  Obsessive about making sure there was not a single crumb? Or did they take the bread, break it further, share it among them, crumbs and all?

2) Would Jesus have forced the blessed bread of the Last Supper, his Body offered, broken, and given for us, into the mouth of a person suffering pain from open wounds of oral surgery, even when that person had put out her hands, reverently, to receive the host in a way she could manage with as little pain as possible?

It is a meal, in remembrance of his self-offering.  Take and eat.  Take and drink.

Thank God Vatican II scraped off the barnacles of pieties not backed up by the Gospels.  I hope that if you value kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue, you will acknowledge that is a devotion that appeals to you.  But that is not, therefore, the practice of the world-wide Church for good reasons--and should not be, for important reasons rooted in the Gospels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Apostles were given the sacrament of Holy Orders  at that same time so they could handle the sacred species.  Furthermore taken from The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition" so while to Apostles may have touched it the council says the others did not.

2. Your unpleasant experience is not a valid objection to communion on the tongue since a priest could have gently placed the host on your tongue, something you would have done had you placed it in your own mouth with your own hand.

3. Vatican II did not do away with communion on the tongue and documents show Pope Paul VI did not view communion in the hand as the better method of the two.

4. There is no logical reason for communion I the hand since you're putting it on your tongue which is exactly where the priest is going to put it anyway!  Your hands are better than the consecrated hands of the priest who is acting In Persona Christi?  In short your hands are better than Christ's?!

Edited September 4, 2016 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Guest]

Redemptorist Fathers' website.  While this article does not treat specifically of posture etc.re  reception of The Blessed Eucharist, a read of the whole article will reveal some norms that can be applied to discern Church teaching and other related matters:

 

Quote

 

"Unfortunate Distractions"   Excerpt only: "Unfortunately, a small group of people resists the reforms of Vatican II, and their voices were isolated and contained until the explosion of digital media.  Now they can reach new audiences through social media posts, elegant and official-looking websites, and blogs. People with scrupulosity are always looking for answers and certitude. Because the presentation and language of these media express unwavering certitude............

............... Official change in liturgical practice or the interpretation of Church law is announced from the pulpit—and not just one pulpit, but all pulpits. Dioceses distribute materials explaining the change and allow sufficient time for a smooth and anxiety-free transition from one practice to another. If these components are not present, no official change is occurring.

Therefore, without exception, ignore discussion about change that hasn’t been officially announced by a diocese or the USCCB."

 

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[<3 PopeFrancis]

7 hours ago, hotpink said:

But again, the Catholic Church cannot just change decades of meaning because they feel like it.  The type of submission that kneeling generally invokes today has little to do with the emotion the CC is trying to convey.  The message is not one of 50 shades/slavery/school shootings rather a submission of complete and total love.  Culturally standing is the closest thing we have.

It must be more important than school shootings.  Preserving the tradition of the Eucharist and the proper and most efficacious form in receiving Our Lord. 

6 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

Would Jesus have forced the blessed bread of the Last Supper, his Body offered, broken, and given for us, into the mouth of a person suffering pain from open wounds of oral surgery, even when that person had put out her hands, reverently, to receive the host in a way she could manage with as little pain as possible?

Maybe this is how we can best serve Him.

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

............... Official change in liturgical practice or the interpretation of Church law is announced from the pulpit—and not just one pulpit, but all pulpits. Dioceses distribute materials explaining the change and allow sufficient time for a smooth and anxiety-free transition from one practice to another. If these components are not present, no official change is occurring.

This is how our Diocese transitioned when the new Holy Mass was official.  It is effective.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

6 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

I put out my hands to receive the host.  He knew better.  He had his principles to uphold.  He shoved the host into my mouth.  I can still feel the pain and the violation.

It did indeed violate.

[Guest]

 

30 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

Maybe this is how we can best serve Him.

..........but not necessarily........."maybe" is operative.  It is not what a person does nor appearances but the reason and motivation (the heart) for what is done.

Surely, the most important factor is the disposition of the heart and mind in receiving The Blessed Eucharist. 

Quote

"7But the LORD said to Samuel: "Do not judge from his appearance or from his lofty stature, because I have rejected him. Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the LORD looks into the heart." First Book Samuel chapter 16 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P7A.HTM

 

[Guest]

Quote

 

      4 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

............... Official change in liturgical practice or the interpretation of Church law is announced from the pulpit—and not just one pulpit, but all pulpits. Dioceses distribute materials explaining the change and allow sufficient time for a smooth and anxiety-free transition from one practice to another. If these components are not present, no official change is occurring.

<3 PopeFrancis This is how our Diocese transitioned when the new Holy Mass was official.  It is effective.

 

 

It is also how our diocese transitioned too.