 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 02:49 am |
|
I was told by someone that receiving in the hand though allowed is only supposed to be done for four specific reasons, and not just because you preferred it.
Now this was not someone who I think really is the most trustworthy source, but I did wonder what the church says to help us understand what is the better option for us or what she may have been referring to if anything.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 09:29 am |
|
I was told by someone that receiving in the hand though allowed is only supposed to be done for four specific reasons, and not just because you preferred it.
This EWTN FAQ should resolve the question. It gives the official Vatican documents. (Click on Liturgy and Sacred Music, then on Communion in the Hand to view.)
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 12:25 pm |
|
What does this mean? I thought it is the standard procedure for us to take the chalice from the person and drink from it as we hold it.
160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another
So all I see is that there is no reason that we should not take it in our hand unless it causes us to lose any reverence for the scrament.
----------------
160. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
This norm seeks a single posture among communicants. The purpose spoken of in the norm is given earlier in the General Instruction.
What also confused me was that these documents argued for everybody doing things the same way as a sign of unity in encouraging our postures in standing in communion line al be the same. (though I thought you once argued for allowing genuflecting in line, David, but this seems to say that it is best we all do the same thing.) So why in regard to standing or kneeling would they say we all should do the same thing but for other matters we have options? Is it just the discretion of the authority?
----------
I could not understand if this said that it was not desirable that we kneel in our pew after receiving communion? I thought that this was standard procedre to kneel and wait until it is put back in the tabernacle?
Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?
Responsum: Negative, et ad mentem. The mens is that that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.
-------------
Also what of this sentence to consume the body before returning to my seat? I thought it was ok to let it dissolve slowly? Is it more desirable that we actually have swallowed the host by the time we sit down again?
"The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place"
------------
lastly how do I answer someone who says that Vatican II was only a pastoral council and did not intend to change the mass? Why can a more traditional Catholic (though I am not speaking of a schismatic one) know for certain that things like changing the mass like the altar, or altar girls, or the novus ordo, how can I clearly determine these things are changes that the church did indeed have authority and intent to change (or allow the changes) and have in no way made these masses invalid, even if not as desirable to someone who prefers Tridentine.
Perhaps the topic name of this thread should be changed to something about the liturgical norms for receiving Communion?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 12:50 pm |
|
brian wrote: What does this mean? I thought it is the standard procedure for us to take the chalice from the person and drink from it as we hold it.
160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another
So all I see is that there is no reason that we should not take it in our hand unless it causes us to lose any reverence for the scrament.
We are not permitted to take the host from the ciborium, or to take the cup from the altar. The priest must distribute the Precious Body and Precious Blood from the altar to the ministers, who then distribute it to the faithful.
Formerly, it was sometimes allowed for communicants to approach the altar themselves, and take the host from the paten and the cup from the altar. This is forbidden. Distribution of the sacrament must begin with the priest or deacon.
It is permitted for the priest to hand the cup to a EMHC, who then offers it to each communicant in turn. It is not permitted for each communicant to offer it to the next person in line.
160. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. This norm seeks a single posture among communicants. The purpose spoken of in the norm is given earlier in the General Instruction.
What also confused me was that these documents argued for everybody doing things the same way as a sign of unity in encouraging our postures in standing in communion line al be the same. (though I thought you once argued for allowing genuflecting in line, David, but this seems to say that it is best we all do the same thing.) So why in regard to standing or kneeling would they say we all should do the same thing but for other matters we have options? Is it just the discretion of the authority?
We are encouraged to all receive in the same manner. This helps to avoid accidents and confusion. It also avoids calling attention to ourselves unduly. Still, we are told not to refuse communion to a person who chooses to kneel; instead, the pastor should meet with the person individually and explain the reasons why kneeling is disruptive to the procedure.
As for genuflecting in line, this should also be discouraged simply to prevent falls. A senior citizen who follows someone in line who genuflects unexpectedly could fall and break a hip. A person who wishes to genuflect before receiving the Eucharist should genuflect in his pew, or wait to receive communion last.
The net result is that private acts of reverence should be reserved for private moments; when we gather publicly, our public acts of reverence, such as bowing before receiving the Eucharist, should be sufficient and we should not feel the need for private acts at that time.
Also what of this sentence to consume the body before returning to my seat? I thought it was ok to let it dissolve slowly? Is it more desirable that we actually have swallowed the host by the time we sit down again? "The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place"
You should place the host into your mouth before returning to your seat, and not carry it with you until you are back at your place. This does not mean you must have totally swallowed all particles of the Precious Body by the time you return to your seat.
lastly how do I answer someone who says that Vatican II was only a pastoral council and did not intend to change the mass? Why can a more traditional Catholic (though I am not speaking of a schismatic one) know for certain that things like changing the mass like the altar, or altar girls, or the novus ordo, how can I clearly determine these things are changes that the church did indeed have authority and intent to change (or allow the changes) and have in no way made these masses invalid, even if not as desirable to someone who prefers Tridentine.
Vatican II did not change anything dealing with the mass. The Holy Father did that, after the Fathers of Vatican II suggested it. You can tell that the Church actually had the authority to do it because the Magisterium said so, in the form of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. As Patriarch of the west, the Bishop of Rome has the authority to revise the liturgy, and he did so.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 02:30 pm |
|
Vatican II did not change anything dealing with the mass. The Holy Father did that, after the Fathers of Vatican II suggested it. You can tell that the Church actually had the authority to do it because the Magisterium said so, in the form of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. As Patriarch of the west, the Bishop of Rome has the authority to revise the liturgy, and he did so.
Could you refer me to a source that sort of deals with this subject and how and why certain changes came about and why we can trust them and the authority they came from. Some people will not believe you unless you have proof, and I hate saying things in conversation that I can not back up with facts. I know what you are saying is true, but I am looking for a detailed account website of book or something.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 03:33 pm |
|
brian wrote: Could you refer me to a source that sort of deals with this subject and how and why certain changes came about and why we can trust them and the authority they came from.
As for the authority, it's in the Catechism:
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406
As for how specific changes were made, and the rationale behind them, I can't point to a web site. I know that communion in the hand was the norm in the early Church, and it's restoration was part of the general restoration of the liturgy of the early Church. This Faith Fact explains how the change came about.
As for the method of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, these are the instructions:
"Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?"
These instructions were written by Cyril of Jerusalem in 390 AD, so it's not exactly a "new practice". Taken from Catholic Answers.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27th, 2007 08:48 am |
|
brian wrote:
Vatican II did not change anything dealing with the mass. The Holy Father did that, after the Fathers of Vatican II suggested it. You can tell that the Church actually had the authority to do it because the Magisterium said so, in the form of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. As Patriarch of the west, the Bishop of Rome has the authority to revise the liturgy, and he did so.
Could you refer me to a source that sort of deals with this subject and how and why certain changes came about and why we can trust them and the authority they came from. Some people will not believe you unless you have proof, and I hate saying things in conversation that I can not back up with facts. I know what you are saying is true, but I am looking for a detailed account website of book or something.
I'm reading a lot of Vatican II documents at the moment; I've converted most of the ones I've gotten from the internet into MS Word documents with footnotes and formatted them for booklet printing. Many of them talk about the nature of the changes suggested and why to make them.
You can see a list of them at http://thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2007/02/books-of-reasonable-price.html . There's more than just those, and you can find all of them at the Vatican's web site.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 4th, 2007 04:32 pm |
|
Ok folks, watched Web of Faith last night and the question regarding whether it is proper to receive Communion in the hand or mouth was asked. Now the younger priest (can't recall his name) quoted Mother Teresa of Calcutta as saying something to the effect that receiving in the hand was one of the worst things the Catholic Church could have allowed. She and her nuns still receive on the tongue.
The elder priest said that receiving in the hand started to become popular after Vatican II and it just sort of spread throughout the American Catholic Church as a practice. He said something to the effect that receiving in the hand was moreso something the church began to allow without the explicit approval of the Pope/Vatican. Eventually it became so popular that it sort of was just allowed to be done. Now I know I'm being a bit sloppy with my language here, but the gist that I got was that it was not so much by the rule of the Magesterium that this practice became permissable, but rather because it just became popular and spread to the different churches and became a practice because of its popularity and preference. Am I understanding this right?
Both priests agreed that a parishioner can receive either in the hand or the mouth and the priest administering the host should accomodate each member to what is most acceptable for them.
Any comments folks?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 4th, 2007 06:10 pm |
|
I received in the hand up until a few weeks ago; I received on the tongue for the first time on Holy Thursday, I believe. I do, on occasion, receive in the hand, but only when a particular circumstance arises that I think warrants it.
My primary reasons for receiving on the tongue are a) to treat the Eucharist with a certain respect and dignity, b) to distinguish (even further) the Eucharist from normal food, and c) because I had recently noticed visible pieces of the Host remaining on my hand. About that last one: I only noticed it when I was receiving a piece of the large Host the priest held in his hands during the consecration. Because that Host is broken into smaller pieces, it is more likely tiny pieces of the Host will break off when it is placed in your hand.
I do not have a problem with receiving in the hand, so long as it is done with the proper reverence. I note that, while the priests' hands have been anointed and mine have not, my tongue was never anointed to receive the Host, but logically, if you're going to consume the Eucharist, it has to go in your mouth eventually! I also had the unfortunate experience of a Host falling off my tongue two weeks ago (I have never had a Host fall from my hand). I really wished the paten was still in use to catch it.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Current time is 04:06 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
