Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Jun 4th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Your claim that the early Christians tore at "the one loaf" shows a gross misreading of history and theology.

Patristic literature shows evidence of the use of the tabernacle from at least the Second Century. Even before that, the understanding of the Eucharist proceeded from the Jewish understanding of the difference between a sacrificial meal and a common supper. This can be seen in the instructions for the Passover Sedar and the reception of the Peace offerings ( termed the "Todah" or Thank offering) in Leviticus.

The best explanations for this can be found in Scott Hahn "the Lamb's Supper", and the commentary for Leviticus in the Douay-Rheims bible website, taken directly from the Haydock study bible. It explains the various sacrifices and how they are integrated into the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass better than anywhere else.
I love the way you misquote what I said. But hey, you have to make your rebuttal sound like you are slaying a dragon.

Read it carefully I did not use the word "tore."

And if you remember your history, all the Apostles were dead by the end of the first century. so your statement that tabernacles were in use , "... from at least the Second Century." has nothing to do with my statement. By the way the second century lasted for 100 years., so your statement is too ambiguous to be meaningful.

The early Mass was celebrated in the homes of Christians, since no church buildings existed, and was part of a meal. The loaf of bread was passed around for all to partake.

So my statement stands and yours falls as a result of ambiguities inappropriately raised to the dignity of fact and irrelevance to the statement I made..
Jun 4th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: I, for one, believe he is absolutely right. Communion in the hand is an indult practice imported from the Netherlands, if you can believe that. Communion is rightly on the tongue.

What the pastor of that California parish discovered is, sadly, quite common, and we should all request the end of this indult that only Satan delights in.

http://en.gloria.tv/?media=418215

No, no, no Steven.
Jun 4th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Oh my!

All those early Christians, the ones brought to the Church by the Apostles and their early sucerssors, have all gone to hell because they not only received in the hand they (gasp, gasp, gasp) actually broke a piece of the bread from the loaf.


Paul, you are not helping by stretching what Steven said.
Jun 4th 2013 new
(quote) Ray-566531 said: Bernard -- Unfortunately we can't be sure what really happened here. It could have occurred accidentally under the most innocent circumstances. We simply don't know.

It took a long time for me to get used to receiving the host in my hand, but I kept thinking historically how the Eucharist was administered in the early days. Beginning with the Last Supper, the Body of Christ was taken by hand. This actually was the accepted practice for about a thousand years.

The Eucharist can be received reverently either way, and it's up to the individual to decide how to receive the host (as allowed in the US). Our Good Lord knows our intentions when receive Communion. For those who prefer to receive the host on the tongue, their decision is to be respected, even though the number of people receiving it this way are in the minority. By the same token, receiving the Eucharist (in either form) is commendable, provided the recipient has met the requirements for validly receiving the sacrament.
I know you are gone Ray, but I felt drawn in by this comment you posted; so it's a bit weird for me to think you won't have a chance to receive my "thank you" for it.

I want to echo your words, but in my case I have yet to receive the Eucharist in the hand. I just can't bring myself to do it, and I have tried, if for no other reason but to fit in with all the rest. Yet, to this day, I can't do it.

You see, at a very early age, probably 7 or 8 it was explained to me that Jesus is present in every particle, every molecule, every atom of the Host, after consecration. Not only is he present there, but each atom contains Jesus completely. It was also emphasized to me, that we should always show the utmost reverence and care in the way we prepare and the way we receive the Holy Eucharist. So, when deeply understood, at an early age, I was always aware to imagine the best means by which not one particle was lost and then inadvertently misplaced or, God forbid, intentionally desecrated.

So, with this clear knowledge, I cannot bring myself to think, that even in the most reverent of efforts on my part that I would risk misplacing even a single element of the species containing the full Body and Blood of Christ. I think of particles that would remain on my hands and I could not see them, but am aware they are very likely there. Me having an engineering background doesn't help either, but makes my awareness that much more acute.

However, I actually was determined once after I felt pretty much broken to do so (receive in the hand), just to fit in and prove to myself it was ok for me too. But as I approached, I actually fell to my knees, mouth wide open. I was more shocked than anyone else! That is what brought me back. Having been bbroken in the years just prior, after that I knew where God thought I belonged.

Adoration is one of the most efficacious means to accept God's will for fallen away Catholics. All one needs to do is just sit there, in His presence. Eventually there begins a conversation.


Jun 4th 2013 new
I used to receive solely on the tongue, until we moved to Purcell and it was so surprising to everyone. My pastor asked me about it, and I said, well I had never gotten comfortable with the hand. He told me to think about it some and pray about it. One of the problems with maintaining communion on the tongue when all others receive in the hand is that the altar servers no longer stand at the ready with the paten to catch a Host should it fall. I have grown comfortable with either method. And, as for finding Hosts etc, I can remember my uncle a Priest, chasing someone out the side door, who had come in to receive a Host to take with him for who knows what reasons and was not a Catholic. Communion in the hand can be as reverent as Communion on the tongue, the reverence is in the manner of the recipient, not his hand or his tongue.
Jun 4th 2013 new
I hope no one rushes to judge those who find taking the sacred host in their hand as a very reverent way of receiving our Lord. Approaching the chalice individually and taking the host in your hand more closely follows the example of the Last Supper and I am even more awed and respectful when I receive this way. In our parish, if you wish to approach and take the host on your tongue, you have that option.
Jun 4th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: I love the way you misquote what I said. But hey, you have to make your rebuttal sound like you are slaying a dragon.

Read it carefully I did not use the word "tore."

And if you remember your history, all the Apostles were dead by the end of the first century. so your statement that tabernacles were in use , "... from at least the Second Century." has nothing to do with my statement. By the way the second century lasted for 100 years., so your statement is too ambiguous to be meaningful.

The early Mass was celebrated in the homes of Christians, since no church buildings existed, and was part of a meal. The loaf of bread was passed around for all to partake.

So my statement stands and yours falls as a result of ambiguities inappropriately raised to the dignity of fact and irrelevance to the statement I made..
I am sorry. You said "broke" and not "tore," and the breaking of the host is done in the Latin Rite to this day in the Mass.

My apologies, but my larger point is that it is not, as I felt you implied, a common meal. There is a distinction.
Jun 5th 2013 new
(quote) Monica-291280 said: I hope no one rushes to judge those who find taking the sacred host in their hand as a very reverent way of receiving our Lord. Approaching the chalice individually and taking the host in your hand more closely follows the example of the Last Supper and I am even more awed and respectful when I receive this way. In our parish, if you wish to approach and take the host on your tongue, you have that option.
No judgement on the Laity.If anyone will be judged for this practice of Communion in the hand,it will be the Bishops.
Jun 29th 2013 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said:
Im heartbroken to announce that last week, we discovered a crushed consecrated Host beneath one of the kneelers, the pastor of a small yet devout Californian parish says. He pauses for a moment before he goes on, his voice choked by just indignation and sadness: This is God, people. God. Then he drops the bomb. Im writing to Pope Francis to do away with the practice of Communion in the hand altogether. I believe most of the abuses and blasphemies that the Eucharist has undergone is because of this practice.http://catholicinsight.com/blasphemy-abuse-communion-in-the-hand/
Blasphemy is specifically irreverent/slanderous speech; it refers to speech. This would be more correctly defined as sacrilege.
Jun 29th 2013 new
Since I received First Holy Communion at the age of 7 to today at the age of 61 , I have only received it on the tongue. I will not change from receiving it this way. In school we were taught that only the Priest could handle the host because his hands were consecrated.
Posts 11 - 20 of 52