A Question

[toledo_jesus]

yeah, I think they should really stress receiving on the tongue. Last week in Mass a woman came up with her three children, and she was holding one. Well the little girl began to fuss and squirm, so it was all the lady could do to hold on to her. Father held up the Body of Christ and the woman just stuck out her right hand and more or less had to grab it from him. It was just so disrespectful and unnecessary because she could have held on to her child with both hands, and just opened her mouth. I wonder if the thought even occurred to her that she could receive on the tongue.
I personally never take Him in my hands anymore. Not since I went to the Latin Mass. It's just something extra I remember to do to make up for those times when I'm not as reverent as I could be. I don't kneel though.

Edited September 15, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Sep 15 2004, 01:25 AM'] Just to clarify, the univerisal norm of the Church is to receive kneeling and on the tongue, forbidding either standing or receiving in the hand. This norm has been deviated from in some places in the world and the Pope has given permission for the norms to be broken because he did not want all the people breaking the norms to be sinning (at least that is a charitable look at the situation). This does not constitute as a good reason to deviate from the norms. Disobedience should not be made into obedience simply by persistence. You should receive on the tongue, regardless of what your priest or anyone else says. This is a Tradition of the Church which cannot be denied. It is antiquarianism to suggest the argument that "because the Apostles (who were all [b]Priests[/b]) received in the hand, so can I." This is false because of the fact that they were all ordained and also because it is antiquarianism. To say that a rite or practice is superior simply because it is more ancient is condemned as error. The superior rite or practice is that which is most reverent and which gives most honor to God. You tell me, in light of the other parts of the Mass and simply common sense, which is more reverent--receiving in the hand and standing up (least reverent possible other than sitting down, which is impractical) or receiving kneeling and on the tongue. There is no way to assert that standing is more reverent without disregarding the concept of posture as a form of reverence (and rejecting the practice of the Church to kneel during times of Mass which require the most reverence). It is impossible to claim that receiving in the hand is more reverent because it leaves opportunity for sacrilege and it asserts the role of the ordained (according to all Popes after the persecutions, and even during the persecutions, up to and including the current Pope). [/quote]
If the Pope allows it, in this case I would think it's okay. He is allowed to change the norms. The traditions (with a small t) do not have to be upheld in every case. We aren't a people who have to do things rythmically. The Pope didn't give permission to break the norms. He instituted new norms. There's a difference. It is not a "T"radition. It's not been dogmatically defined. It's not always been the case that we receive on the tongue at all. Read St. John Chrysostom (sp?). He talks repeatedly on this.

[dUSt]

[i]"However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand."[/i]

This is something I hardly ever see the EMCs (extraordinary ministers of communion) do. All too often I see people take His body and start walking away, not putting Him in their mouth until after they are out of site of the EMC. It makes me cringe, and I struggle between keeping my head down in silent prayer and watching to make sure nobody simply walks away with Christ without consuming Him. [b]We need better education and screening for extraordinary ministers of communion![/b]

[Paladin D]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Sep 15 2004, 12:32 PM'] [b]We need better education and screening for extraordinary ministers of communion![/b] [/quote]
My neighbor (who is a 4th degree KofC and a EMC), pretty much would agree with you. He cringes when some parishes just pull anyone to give out Communion without proper training, so I'm glad he takes his job seriously.

[amarkich]

qfnol, it is a Tradition of the Church (according to Saint Basil the Great) that outside of persecutions, Holy Communion may not be received in any means other than on the tongue. He said that such an act (by a layman) is absolutely forbidden other than times of persecution (Early Church included, of course). In any event, what I stated are the current norms for receiving Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church (at least in the Latin Rite): kneeling with no option of standing and on the tongue with no option of hand Communion. Those are the norms of the Latin Rite currently in 2004. This is obviously not the practice in the United States, but I was simply stating the norms of the universal Church concerning the reception of Holy Communion. There is no universal norm allowing for standing, and there is definitely no universal norm allowing for hand Communion. The Church's norms are not "either or" as some people have been explaining it; the Church's norms are kneeling and on the tongue without exception. Here is the big question: with all the abuses of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, why would any faithful Catholic support the usage of them at all if they are not the norm of the universal Church (or even the Church in America) and if they are so often abused? Being an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is by no means a right and is unprecedented in Church history. No layman had ever distributed Holy Communion at any time during Church history until this practice (as an [b]abuse[/b]) began occuring. Once the Vatican realized that the abuse could not be stopped, it was allowed "in order to keep the faithful from committing the sin of disobedience" with ristrictions. Even the restrictions are not followed today. Seeing the historical reasoning behind this practice and its currently abused from, not to mention the fact that there is no right to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and the fact that it confuses and misguides the faithful insofar as they are given the impression that they have a "right" to act in this manner, why should any Catholic support the practice at all? The fact that it is currently a practice is not a good reason; I would really like to here some kind of philosophical or logical reasoning behind this. The worst that could happen: Communion takes a little bit longer and we are forced to spend extra time in prayer. I think this is certainly a good thing, and if priests would preach the fact that 'Catholics' who do not believe all that the Church teaches and Catholics not in the state of Grace and Catholics who are not obeying the Church's norms for marriage cannot receive Communion, then I think the lines would be so short that there would never be a need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Is there any logical defense for the practice in general?

N.B., please do not respond that acting as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is simply a layman's "way of serving the Church" or some similar statement. The Church does not teach that this is an acceptable reason to have an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. They are only permitted in cases when there are so many faithful that it would be a "grave burden" for only the Sacred Ministers to distribute Communion. Further, the Church also says that the faithful may receive under both Sacred Species [i]only [/i]when the number is small enough that it would not prolong the Mass. How can it be, then, that there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who distribute Communion from the chalice?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Sep 15 2004, 11:32 AM'] [i]"However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand."[/i]

This is something I hardly ever see the EMCs (extraordinary ministers of communion) do. All too often I see people take His body and start walking away, not putting Him in their mouth until after they are out of site of the EMC. It makes me cringe, and I struggle between keeping my head down in silent prayer and watching to make sure nobody simply walks away with Christ without consuming Him. [b]We need better education and screening for extraordinary ministers of communion![/b] [/quote]
I was visiting a parish nearby recently in which the pastor addressed this very problem. Apparently, people cleaning up the sanctuary after Mass had been finding Jesus in pew racks and at the back of cushions -- people had been going forward to receive, but then not consuming His body.



I was glad the priest was addressing the problem, but [i]horrified[/i] people were doing this.

[amarkich]

Sojourner, I posed this question previously on Phatmass. With this being seen, why is there ever a reason to permit hand Communion? If there is even a chance for something like that happening even once ever in the history of the world as a result of hand Communion, that is a good enough reason to condemn the practice outright and to not practice it ourselves. There is no "right" to hand Communion. The norm of the Church is to receive on the tongue without allowing hand Communion. Some areas (for reasons of an abuse originally, as I stated) have allowed hand Communion simply because it was already being practiced and the Church didn't want all those people to be receiving in automatic mortal sin for the sacrilege they were committing, so the Church said it is no longer a sacrilege in some areas of the world, i.e., the dissidents. What logic is there is defending a practice that could even possibly make it easier for sacrilege to occur?

[mulls]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Sep 15 2004, 02:39 PM'] Apparently, people cleaning up the sanctuary after Mass had been finding Jesus in pew racks and at the back of cushions.

[/quote]
= why catholocism is still strange to me. sorry.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='mulls' date='Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM'] = why catholocism is still strange to me. sorry. [/quote]
Yeah, that would've sounded strange to me not so very long ago too.

Funny how conversion changes things ...

[amarkich]

Interestingly enough, there is more proof for my argument. Not only is hand Communion a sacrilege and confusing to the Faithful, it is also a source of confusion to possible converts to Catholicism. There has yet to be an answer to my question.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Sep 15 2004, 02:39 PM'] I was visiting a parish nearby recently in which the pastor addressed this very problem. Apparently, people cleaning up the sanctuary after Mass had been finding Jesus in pew racks and at the back of cushions -- people had been going forward to receive, but then not consuming His body.



I was glad the priest was addressing the problem, but [i]horrified[/i] people were doing this. [/quote]
That is one [b]huge advantage[/b] of only permitting people receiving on the tongue, you wouldn't be running into problems like this. But I'm not going against the Magisterium, just an observation.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Sep 15 2004, 01:43 PM'] Sojourner, I posed this question previously on Phatmass. With this being seen, why is there ever a reason to permit hand Communion? If there is even a chance for something like that happening even once ever in the history of the world as a result of hand Communion, that is a good enough reason to condemn the practice outright and to not practice it ourselves. There is no "right" to hand Communion. The norm of the Church is to receive on the tongue without allowing hand Communion. Some areas (for reasons of an abuse originally, as I stated) have allowed hand Communion simply because it was already being practiced and the Church didn't want all those people to be receiving in automatic mortal sin for the sacrilege they were committing, so the Church said it is no longer a sacrilege in some areas of the world, i.e., the dissidents. What logic is there is defending a practice that could even possibly make it easier for sacrilege to occur? [/quote]
Amarkich,
I can appreciate your argument, and I definitely understand where you're coming from on this.

However, what this parish was dealing with -- which I'm sure other parishes are dealing with too -- is people who don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ. Merely preventing them from taking on the hand isn't going to solve the issue at the heart of this, which is a lack of true faith.

Let's say that what's been happening here is that "Joe" (not his real name) walks into church. He committed some sort of mortal sin, and he knows he shouldn't receive the Eucharist, but he doesn't want to stay in his pew and so he goes forward anyway, taking the host and then failing to consume it. He goes back to his seat, still holding the host, and he's not sure what to do with it, so he puts Jesus into the pew rack.

Is the problem here the fact that Joe received communion in the hand, or that Joe hasn't received proper catechesis? And dUSt is right -- the eucharistic minister should be trained to watch to make sure people actually consume the Eucharist.

I think the problem is a lack of solid teaching rather than a problem with the form.

Let's say Joe had instead come into a church where he was receiving on the tongue -- wouldn't he have caused as great a sacrilege by receiving in a state of mortal sin?

The bottom line: Joe needs to go to confession, and he needs to know that if he is in a state of mortal sin, he shouldn't be receiving communion and should stay in his pew.

[amarkich]

The fact is that there would not be a sacrilege against Our Lord which is ongoing, all other things aside. The fact that the Blessed Sacrament would be left anywhere other than the Tabernacle is evil and sacrilegious. To receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin is one of the most evil things that can be done, of course, but it certainly can be worse to have Our Lord trampled because of the fact that someone has not consumed the Blessed Sacrament. The problem is poor catechesis, sure, but that does not change the fact that hand Communion facilitates sacrilege, either intentionally (your church's situation) or unintentionally (particles from the Sacred Host falling onto the ground, one's hands, one's clothing, etc; I think this is the biggest problem of all with hand Communion because then everyone who is coming afterward, trying to receive Communion reverently, is stepping on Our Lord because of the Sacred Particles the same as if He were present in a large Host, c.f., the Church's doctrine on the whole and entire change of Transubstantiation). God bless.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Sep 15 2004, 03:16 PM'] Amarkich,
I can appreciate your argument, and I definitely understand where you're coming from on this.

However, what this parish was dealing with -- which I'm sure other parishes are dealing with too -- is people who don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ. Merely preventing them from taking on the hand isn't going to solve the issue at the heart of this, which is a lack of true faith.

Let's say that what's been happening here is that "Joe" (not his real name) walks into church. He committed some sort of mortal sin, and he knows he shouldn't receive the Eucharist, but he doesn't want to stay in his pew and so he goes forward anyway, taking the host and then failing to consume it. He goes back to his seat, still holding the host, and he's not sure what to do with it, so he puts Jesus into the pew rack.

Is the problem here the fact that Joe received communion in the hand, or that Joe hasn't received proper catechesis? And dUSt is right -- the eucharistic minister should be trained to watch to make sure people actually consume the Eucharist.

I think the problem is a lack of solid teaching rather than a problem with the form.

Let's say Joe had instead come into a church where he was receiving on the tongue -- wouldn't he have caused as great a sacrilege by receiving in a state of mortal sin?

The bottom line: Joe needs to go to confession, and he needs to know that if he is in a state of mortal sin, he shouldn't be receiving communion and should stay in his pew. [/quote]
Great point.

[jasJis]

I have belonged to a number of parishes. Have been involved and knew/know the priests quite well. I also know the the people who clean up the pews afterwards and have myself, cleaned the pews, picking up the misallettes, printed song sheets, bulletins. I have NEVER seen or heard of people finding the Eucharist in the pews.