Why I'm Giving Up Communion On the Tongue
#21
These are the types of "catholic" articles that are often in this rag.  National Catholic Register is a Legionaires of Christ run newspaper ... that says a lot -neo catholic bird feeder bound.  Can't expect much from this piece of crap. Yet, many NO priests probably still read this.
Reply
#22
Very sad.... I think this kind of thought is uninfluenced by a modernist theology, "yes, is better in the tongue but i don't want to be scandalous and I HAVE THE RIGTH TO RECEVE my Lord", We don't' have the Right of anything, The Holly Host is a give; we will prefer to don't receve it before do it improperly; I'm  NO parishioner, but my parish is a very pious one, we receve the Lord kneeling in the rails and only the "foreins" use their hands.  And at the end, receive the host in the hand is not NORMAL, even the NO instructions for the missal says that this practice is AN ABUSE tolerated because is so extended, any priest can deny the comunion in the hand ALWAYS but no one can deny the NORMAL way kneeling and in the tongue.  I have lived away from my home for a couple of years and I go to mass but if i can get the comunion in a proper way i just don't do it; even one time i was practically forced by the priest to use my hands i said "no father" he said again "your hands" i just turn back to my seat....

And, as HarlequinK said, one time a year is correct, for me this is better than go with the abuses.
Reply
#23
(12-29-2010, 07:28 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Back in my NO days when I was an EMHC I was given instruction on the proper way to give Communion on the tongue. I would rather have no EMHC's and have Communion on the tongue only from a priest but if the NO is going to have EMHC's there is no reason why they can't be properly instructed in how to give Communion on the tongue.

Yes, when I was a EMHC, I was also taught how to give Communion on the tongue.  We even practiced with unconsecrated wafers.  The problem, IMO, is that most people receive in the hand, plus most who receive on the tongue will get in the priest's line, so EMHCs don't get much practice in giving Communion on the tongue.  EMHCs don't serve every week, either, so it's fairly unusual when they are called upon to give Communion on the tongue and thus a little unnerving for them.  I never had any problems when giving Communion on the tongue but always tensed up a bit until the communicant pulled his tongue and the Host safely into his mouth and moved on.

EMHCs do not want to do it wrong, they really, really don't want to drop the Host, but the safest course, if you receive on the tongue, is to receive only from a priest. 

The last time I received from an EMHC, having been maneuvered into her line against my will, she apparently thought the Host hadn't stick to my tongue, though it had, and pulled back on it so it pulled free and started to fall.  I nearly sprained my tongue catching it but I got it back into my mouth before she could get hold of it again. 

Nobody will ever get me out of the priest's line again, I guarantee.  You shouldn't have to go after the Host with a frog-like extension of your tongue and a forward and to the left move of your head. 

Reply
#24
(12-30-2010, 02:07 AM)Vincentius Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 07:11 PM)Baskerville Wrote: It never ceases to surprise me how many stupid people go to the NO. This NOtard could solve all her problems by receiving only from the Priest.

List all the TLMs celebrated every Sunday (and Holiday) in the world and the Churches (and chapels) where this is done.  Not everybody can go to the TLM and there is still the serious obligation to fulfill the Sunday precept.  These close to a billion Catholics are all stupid?   These sheeple have no choice.  There is some sense of a schismatic drift in statements like these.

Indeed there is.  Those who can attend the EF are very fortunate but when they make statements like this, they should be called EFtards.

Although I have always been able to receive on the tongue from the priest at OF Masses, if everyone at an OF Mass tried to receive from the priest, it would be a bit of a problem.  A problem that could be solved by the priest being the only one to give Communion but I'm not sure all priests would use the logical solution.  Many of them believe it's important for the laity to participate as EMHCs and lectors and most bishops seem to believe the same, so a priest who decided to be the only one giving Communion at Mass might get in trouble with the bishop.

Reply
#25
(12-30-2010, 03:33 AM)Petertherock Wrote: You cannot be under an obligation to attend a service that puts your soul in danger and blasphemes Our Lord any more than the Pope can bound you under pain of sin to go to a Mosque to fulfill your Sunday obligation.

If the NO is an aberration, walk out and don't come back.    I have been to many countries where the NO is celebrated with reverence.  There are Eastern rite liturgies but they aren't to be found everywhere unfortunately.  These Liturgies have gone NO (e.g., the Maronite) as well but significantly, there are no abuses.
Reply
#26
(12-30-2010, 12:44 AM)dark lancer Wrote:
(12-30-2010, 12:41 AM)Virgil the Roman Wrote:
(12-29-2010, 10:06 PM)dark lancer Wrote: This was on posted on OBOB and lately CITH is the hot-button issue there.  Only a minority of Catholics there are against CITH and have basically plugged their ears to anything anyone says against it.
Yeah, I was just banned from OBOB and CF.  Apparently, trying to tell an ex-Catholic Protestant heretic who was masquerading as supposedly devout Catholick, all the while sowing doubt and the seeds of Prot-ism in the hearts of potential Catholics and young converts; attempting to draw them away from Roman Catholicism, is bad. :doh:

Who was that?
The charismaniac poster named "Banish'd".  : :doh:
Reply
#27
(12-30-2010, 03:33 AM)Petertherock Wrote: You cannot be under an obligation to attend a service that puts your soul in danger and blasphemes Our Lord any more than the Pope can bound you under pain of sin to go to a Mosque to fulfill your Sunday obligation.

An argument that goes nowhere since no pope has ever done such a thing.

That line of logic could be used to justify disobedience in any matter whatsoever.
Reply
#28
I've come to enjoy insisting on receiving on the tongue from a priest who clearly doesn't really want to oblige.  I've never been refused yet.  I do, of course, avoid Masses where it's likely to be an issue altogether.  (It's a shame someone would need to explain to a priest that, yes, his consecrated hands are indeed sacred, and different than mine.)

I have seen a definite increase in the number receiving on the tongue in the last five years - I would have to assume this is due in large part to the pope's example.
Reply
#29
I don't have a problem with communion in the hand, but I think communion in the hand should only be allowed if the person who received the eucharist, puts it in his mouth in fron of the priest, you cant let someone leave with the body of Christ intheir hands who knows what they may do.
Reply
#30
(12-29-2010, 07:11 PM)Baskerville Wrote: It never ceases to surprise me how many stupid people go to the NO. This NOtard could solve all her problems by receiving only from the Priest.

That's exactly what I was thinking.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)