Communion givers must hate me


#125

Speaking as a “communion giver”, just be sure to open wide and stick your tongue far out. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about when giving communion. Oh, that and look at the host as I hold it and say “the body of Christ”. :grin:


#126

I’m writing this with the utmost respect, but you’re seriously misconstruing my words. I am not now nor have I said the “Church is now wrong.”

I have REPEATEDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY written that communion in the hand is authorised and lawful.

This is my point: I witnessed the theft of a consecrated host. I then researched the liturgical norms. I found - to my surprise - that Rome DID NOT WANT communion in the hand. I verified this by actually reading the documents. Rome CAPITULATED and created an EXCEPTION to the law.

Here is my issue: THE EXCEPTION BECAME THE NORM and my nephew was refused communion on the tongue at his first communion.

MANY PEOPLE ON THIS THREAD HAVE READ MEANINGS INTO MY WORDS WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING WHAT I WROTE.

I’m not judging anybody. I SHARED INFORMATION I FOUND during my research. Nothing more and nothing less.

Onewoman: this post isn’t so much directed to you as to everybody else who have placed words in my mouth and misinterpreted my words.


#127

I read what you wrote.
You wrote on the tongue is “better”.
It is not, and the Church has said so, repeatedly.

I am sorry about what happened to your nephew, it should not have happened. But to even suggest that Rome gave in to something is wrong. That is my point. You may not mean it the way it sounds, but the way your words come across is that Rome just caved in and let the disobedience slide. I hope that is not what you think.


#128

Aw shucks! See I knew communion givers hate me! Tonguester that I am. What about handsters? What are the rules and do they fail at it too? I actually saw a man grab the host from the giver with his two fingers last week. I can only assume that is a no no as well?


#129

Yes. That is a no no. If one is going receive on the hand, they should offer there hand, and have the host placed in it. Then they pick it up with their free hand and consume the host.

That said, I have had some of the same issues with those that receive in the hand as well. It is not the method of how one receives that is problematic, it is the the lack of catechesis that is the problem.


#130

What does it mean to flag a post?

Btw, I’m formerly Faith1960


#131

This proves to me that you have not read what the Church has written on the matter. Pope Benedict XVI even tried to give good example by only giving communion on the tongue. Pope Paul VI strongly insisted that people receive on the tongue.

The truth is available to anybody who can google search or who has an Amazon account. Buy yourself Dominus Est.

Everybody, member or not, can read what I have written and the sources I’ve provided and make their own mind up.

Here’s the bottom line: Catholics received Communion on the tongue for centuries upon centuries. Then some Bishops decided they knew better and broke the liturgical laws. Rome tried to stop them but failed. Eventually, Rome issued an exception to the law. The result is that communion in the hand has become the norm in many places. As for myself, I’ll follow the traditional practice. I believe in the Real Presence and I don’t want to risk dropping Our Lord on the floor to be trodden underfoot. Who can disagree with this? Those who receive in the hand and don’t want to admit that the practice was born in disobedience and results in increased risk of desecration. That’s all I have to say on the matter.


#132

I have been closely following this thread and I am highly impressed with your posts. You have politely but firmly made an excellent case for the venerable tradition of receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue. The sources you provided and the recommended readings are pertinent and anyone who reads them honestly will understand where you are coming from. Also, your summary of the advent of Communion in the hand in the above post is right on the mark. Please do not be discouraged by the negativity you’ve been subjected to in this thread by others who have clearly failed to read your posts or who are blatantly looking for a fight. Know that there are many who are reading your posts who are silent. These you have provided with a more informed view of this debate. May Our Lady keep you.


#133

This has nothing to do with the Magisterium. As Saxum has pointed out on many occasions it is a Church discipline - a “little t tradition”.


#134

On this new forum thingy, people can “flag” posts they don’t like by hitting the three little “show more” dots at the bottom of the post. That brings up the Flag and Bookmark options. If you flag, you’re reporting the post for being objectionable. If enough people hit “flag” then the post gets hidden for a short amount of time so the person can withdraw or edit it, and then if not “fixed”, it vanishes into the ether.

The good side of this feature is, people can make obvious troll posts disappear without having to wait for a mod.

The bad side is, a bunch of people can make a post disappear if it’s actually adding to the discussion but they all disagree with its viewpoint.


#135

It is the Magisterium – who decides and authorizes --which disciplines apply. This is what counts —The Magisterium has spoken-- communion in the hand is authorized/allowed. There should be no – “if/ands/or buts” after that.


#136

Interesting that Saxum continues to say that he/she does not judge but says that COTT is “better”. Sounds like a judgement on those who prefer CITH to me.


#137

Saxum admits that the practice of CITH is lawful, but continues to point out that, as he most recently posted, “The practice started as an abuse, continued in disobedience, and makes sacreligious acts possible.” He has made that point numerous times. Such continuing statements clearly are intended to cast a shadow over the practice of CITH while still acknowledging its legality – in other words, the judgment that CITH is a “shady” practice.

As far as “sacreligious acts,” I clearly remember the sisters I had in school in the '50’s - long before CITH - warning of people (“Masons” were especially cited) taking the Host out of their mouth to take somewhere and desecrate it.


#138

Check this out.


#139

All flags are reviewed by a moderator. If a user abuses the flagging system their trust level may be diminished, account may be temporarily suspended, or some other action may be taken.


#140

Yeah, well, we’re not the apostles, are we?


#141

Yes… it makes you the center of attention doesn’t it? Some people might put forth the argument that is your intention the whole time.


#142

:pushpin: (sixteen more characters)


#144

Where have you been going to Mass then? If you haven’t been going recently, I appreciate your contribution to our forum. But, your emoji is a clown and you present yourself as someone who hasn’t posted here before. Most of us here long to receive Our Lord on our very tongue - that is the proper way.

They should give you Communion. If they deny you that, then that’s a serious offence.


#145

I receive on the tongue.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.