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

Jul 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Leyden-904885 said: Dear souls,

At the risk of shifting the topic, how do your parishes address administering communion to non-Catholics? An example: family members of one of our parishioners visited this weekend. We know they are not Catholic (small parish) and yet they came up for communion.

They partook of His Sacred Body and Blood. For myself it was painful to see. Our general protocol is to not make a fuss and that our priest will address anything he sees. I have often been challenged there to impress upon our people the Real Presence.

In another example we recently had to put our sacristans through (re)training on the proper handling of the sacred vessels and the Blessed Sacrament as we found moldy consecrated hosts (!!!) in one of the tabernacles. It has all been very disconcerting to me, but I see it as a blessed opportunity to help folks grow in their knowledge and love of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

In Christ,
Leyden
Hi Leyden,

One parish I attended had little printed pamphlet-type cards in every pew that explained the practice of communion in the Catholic Church for non-Catholics in a very polite, clear and simple way. The cards basically indicated that if you are not a baptized Catholic, you are welcome to come up during communion with your hands crossed over your chest to receive a blessing, or you could remain seated, as no one will judge you. This was a rather large parish, and I guess they had a lot of visitors during weddings and funerals that were not necessarily Catholic. I thought it was a very diplomatic way to indicate to someone who was not Catholic what to do when time came to receive communion.
Jul 2nd 2013 new
(quote) David-982761 said: 1) It depends on the form(words) used in the consecration of the Host. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: " the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul...uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." If these words were not used or the words used do not effect the same meaning then you do not have a valid sacrament. Most places say, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven" this is not the correct form. Pope St. Pius V teaches the exact same thing as Eugene.
2) Communion in the hand is blasphemous. Only a validly ordained priest, bishop, cardinal is allowed to touch the Host. They have the authority given to them by God through the imposition of the hands in the correct form of consecration when they become priests/bishops. Lay people are not allowed to receive Him in hand, even though the Vatican II "popes" say that you can. It is heretical. Only a priest distributes the Lords body.
When the Novus Ordo missal was translated into English, a very poor job was done, which is why we had the recent revision. However, the translation was approved so valid Consecrations were performed using the approved text. So your contention to the contrary has no basis in fact or reality.

How communiuon is received is a matter of discipline, therefore any Pope can change any discipline at any time n no matter what any previous Pope may have said. Therefore receiving in the hand is NOT BLASPHEMOUS, no matter how much you want it to be. Receiving in the hand was approved and decreed as valid. You don't have to like it and you are free to receive it on the tongue if the Ordinary of your Diocese allows.

What you are NOT FREE TO DO is declare something you don't like as BLASPHEMOUS. Nor are you in any position to declare anything to be heretical especially when you obviously lack the knowledge to form that judgement.
Jul 3rd 2013 new
Receiving in the hand has been a practice of the Church for over 16 centuries.

"Approaching, do not come with your palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making your left hand a seat for your right, and hollowing your palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest you drop any of it."
-- Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, Saint; circa A.D. 347

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
www.newadvent.org

St. Cyril's comment is as applicable today as it was in the 4th century. (I just love that aspect of the Faith.)

Note also, he seems to be directing his comment at poor practices, a problem then and now.



___________________
rosary - God answers knee-mail
Jul 3rd 2013 new
(quote) Jack-752986 said: Receiving in the hand has been a practice of the Church for over 16 centuries.
It is true that some people use this quotation attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem (and also in some codices attributed to his successor as Patriarch, John, in St. Cyril's place) to "prove" that ordinary "communion in the hand" is a practice of the church for over 16 centuries, though most claim that it is part of the evidence which shows it to have been the "norm" up until the 10th century. However, it is a disputed statement, as to authorship...and if one were ACTUALLY to go on reading what "St. Cyril" recommends we do with the sacred species, there would be no argument that this is NOT tradition:

"Sanctify thine eyes with contact by the Holy Body...When thy lips are still wet (after receiving the Sacred Blood), touch them with thy hand, and pass them over thine eyes, thy forehead, and thine other senses, to sanctify them."

Two of our Popes, the Holy Fathers Sts. Leo I and Gregory the Great, in the 400-600s, give the impression that the ordinary method of receiving the sacred species was from the hands of the ordinary minister to the tongue of the communicate:

One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith (Serm. 91.3, St. Leo the Great) and St. Gregory the Great related a telling in his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) of a predecessor, Pope St. Agapito, manifesting a miracle at Mass after the administration of the sacred species into the mouth of a communicate.

As far as I can find, introducing the sacred species onto the hand of the lay communicate was only allowed in extraordinary cases, even in the first centuries of the Church after rituals were established. St. Basil, who lived in the 4th century, wrote in his 93rd Letter, that: "It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon." It is said that he based this conclusion upon the life of desert hermits and monks who had no access to priests, and so kept the sacred species in their houses to communicate themselves.

There is also an indication that it was held that Constantine's conversion to Christianity ended the need for this practice by ending the persecution against Christians.

The coup de grace viz. "communion in the hand" is the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, ch. 8, wherein it is stated:

"Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained."






Jul 3rd 2013 new
Really an excellent post, here, Chelsea. I would add, since you mention St. Basil, that we Easterners have never been troubled by this dispute, since we have practiced intinction for so long. Among us, as among the Orthodox, lay communion in the hand is unthinkable.
Jul 4th 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: It is true that some people use this quotation attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem (and also in some codices attributed to his successor as Patriarch, John, in St. Cyril's place) to "prove" that ordinary "communion in the hand" is a practice of the church for over 16 centuries, though most claim that it is part of the evidence which shows it to have been the "norm" up until the 10th century. However, it is a disputed statement, as to authorship...and if one were ACTUALLY to go on reading what "St. Cyril" recommends we do with the sacred species, there would be no argument that this is NOT tradition:

"Sanctify thine eyes with contact by the Holy Body...When thy lips are still wet (after receiving the Sacred Blood), touch them with thy hand, and pass them over thine eyes, thy forehead, and thine other senses, to sanctify them."

Two of our Popes, the Holy Fathers Sts. Leo I and Gregory the Great, in the 400-600s, give the impression that the ordinary method of receiving the sacred species was from the hands of the ordinary minister to the tongue of the communicate:

One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith (Serm. 91.3, St. Leo the Great) and St. Gregory the Great related a telling in his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) of a predecessor, Pope St. Agapito, manifesting a miracle at Mass after the administration of the sacred species into the mouth of a communicate.

As far as I can find, introducing the sacred species onto the hand of the lay communicate was only allowed in extraordinary cases, even in the first centuries of the Church after rituals were established. St. Basil, who lived in the 4th century, wrote in his 93rd Letter, that: "It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon." It is said that he based this conclusion upon the life of desert hermits and monks who had no access to priests, and so kept the sacred species in their houses to communicate themselves.

There is also an indication that it was held that Constantine's conversion to Christianity ended the need for this practice by ending the persecution against Christians.

The coup de grace viz. "communion in the hand" is the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, ch. 8, wherein it is stated:

"Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained."






Chelsea, your quote in the last paragraph says nothing one way or the other about whether the Body of Christ is received in the hand or on the tongue. When youi receive in the hand, your are receiving it from the hands of a Priest, unless, as it is allowed today, it is from the hands of an Extraordinary Minister.

Everything you cite indicates that however the Sacred body is received is a matter of discipline. And as you well know a discipline can be changed at any time even if it a custom that has been in place for a long time.
Jul 4th 2013 new
(quote) Larry-979190 said: Really an excellent post, here, Chelsea. I would add, since you mention St. Basil, that we Easterners have never been troubled by this dispute, since we have practiced intinction for so long. Among us, as among the Orthodox, lay communion in the hand is unthinkable.
Oh is that why a Coptic Orthodox friend offered me some of the sacred bread she had brought home from the Easter services for her family members who could not attend? She brought home a whole loaf and it was not indicted.

Darn, there goes another slightly misinformed unthinkable action!
Jul 4th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Oh is that why a Coptic Orthodox friend offered me some of the sacred bread she had brought home from the Easter services for her family members who could not attend? She brought home a whole loaf and it was not indicted.

Darn, there goes another slightly misinformed unthinkable action!
Are you certain that was not eulogia (the blessed bread)? There is a very old practice of handing that out when there is not enough consecrated species for everyone to communicate.
Jul 4th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Oh is that why a Coptic Orthodox friend offered me some of the sacred bread she had brought home from the Easter services for her family members who could not attend? She brought home a whole loaf and it was not indicted.

Darn, there goes another slightly misinformed unthinkable action!
Paul, your comment carries no more weight than Larry's. Perhaps your friend's actions in this matter were inappropriate.

Jul 4th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Chelsea, your quote in the last paragraph says nothing one way or the other about whether the Body of Christ is received in the hand or on the tongue. When youi receive in the hand, your are receiving it from the hands of a Priest, unless, as it is allowed today, it is from the hands of an Extraordinary Minister.

Everything you cite indicates that however the Sacred body is received is a matter of discipline. And as you well know a discipline can be changed at any time even if it a custom that has been in place for a long time.
Here is the quote again: "Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained."

To communicate one's self is to take the sacred species in hand and place it into one's own mouth. The Council of Trent states that "priests when celebrating should communicate themselves" as opposed to the custom that "laymen should receive the communion from priests." Priests communicate themselves vs. laymen receiving it from priests.

If the action is the same, taking the bread in hand and putting it into one's own mouth, in both cases, then why is a differentiation being made at the Council? I am not trying to wag a finger at you or demean you in any way, but it doesn't make any sense to me to say that the Council made no differentiation. That would effectively mean that the Council put forth a senseless binding proposition (ought) on this issue.

Matters of small "t" tradition can vary and change, but to say that a custom which is an Apostolic tradition can change is really putting one's foot in it. Who can change an Apostolic tradition??
Posts 31 - 40 of 52