No More Communion in the Hand!
(02-08-2013, 05:09 PM)JoniCath Wrote: The Protestants, of course did not like His suffering discussed in their services. You will notice that, in their Churches there are no Crucifixes, no Corpus upon their crosses. One may see one of the risen Christ, but never as the suffering savior.

Not completely true. While I'm sure they exist, I've never been in an Anglican or Lutheran Church that did not have a Crucifix on the altar. On the other hand, I've been in NO Catholic Churches with nary a Crucifix in sight.
(02-08-2013, 05:20 PM)Pilgrim Wrote:
(02-08-2013, 09:06 AM)Tim Wrote: Communion of the People is not part of the TLM, it is seperate. St. PopePius X started the frequent Communion and lower the age of First Communion. HK can give the history of this.  I don't think it was a good idea all the way round. Just my opinion but familiarity breeds contempt or stuff like this.


Didn't Trent encourage frequent reception of the sacrament to counteract the rarity of Communion in Protestant churches?

Not that I do not believe you fine folks: rather, I just do not recall reading it? Could you glad help a poor lad with the appropriate place to find such a encouragement [to frequent Holy Communion]?! :tiphat:
(02-08-2013, 11:54 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
JoniCath Wrote: [b]love for us is so great[/b][/u], that He allowed Himself to be beaten, humiliated, crowned with thorns, stripped of His garments in front of His Mother & Apostles & finally murdered in a horrible, degrading  way. The Protestants, of course did not like His suffering discussed in their services. You will notice that, in their Churches there are no Crucifixes, no Corpus upon their crosses. One may see one of the risen Christ, but never as the suffering savior.

This very awareness of the high price He paid may have been what caused us to search our consciences for sins & offences & feel the need for confession before receiving. I'm not sure, but this I know........not everyone received the Eucharist at every Mass & the Churches were so packed that no one paid any attention to who received & who didn't.. After all, their reason for staying in the pew could have been that they accidentally broke their fast. NOONE took a chance of receiving unworthily & the state of another's soul was none of our business.

Today, sin has been so downplayed, the Body of Christ has become just another "everyday thing", that EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers are commonplace, the NO Mass so boring &
banal,so "congregation oriented", that everyone receives the Eucharist without much thought to the state of their souls. After all, if they don't receive, their neighbors might think they have committed a mortal sin. I think that this is the reason for the hidden hosts. As long as one goes forward to receive, the "all-important congregation" might think that they have committed a mortal sin. Some go forward, though they[b] have committed grievous acts against God & their fellow man, then hide the host. It's easy to do since they have received their Savior in their hand. [/b]
Sorry, the sentence I've emboldened should have read: As long as one goes forward to receive, the
"all important congregation" will assume that they are in a state of grace.

This is a great post; thanks very much for making it.  I especially like your last point.

One thing bothered me, though-- the formatting made it look like I was the one who said "Communion was always the highlight of Mass"-- I was not the one who said that; rather, I responded to it.  Otherwise, as I said, great post.

Sorry about the formatting. I have been unable to make the quote feature work right for several days. I see that you are having the same problem. I didn't know what to do about it, so I just typed a line between the two posts.  :blush:  And, yes, I did cause it to look like you were saying that receiving the Eucharist is the focal point of the Mass, when you had agreed with me that the SACRIFICE was the focus. Sorry.
EDITED - re-did post
(02-09-2013, 01:07 AM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: Not that I do not believe you fine folks: rather, I just do not recall reading it? Could you glad help a poor lad with the appropriate place to find such a encouragement [to frequent Holy Communion]?! :tiphat:

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has a whole article on frequent communion.

Here are just a couple of interesting (somewhat random) excerpts (note it quotes from the Council of Trent).
"Catholic Encyclopedia  Frequent Communion" Wrote:Frequent Communion

Without specifying how often the faithful should communicate, Christ simply bids us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and warns us, that if we do not do so, we shall not have life in us (John 6, etc.). The fact, however, that His Body and Blood were to be received under the appearances of bread and wine, the ordinary daily food and drink of His hearers, would point, to the frequent and even daily reception of the Sacrament. The manna, too, with which He compared "the bread which He would give", was daily partaken of by the Israelites. Moreover, though the petition "give us this day our daily bread" does not primarily refer to the Eucharist, nevertheless it could not fail to lead men to believe that their souls, as well as their bodies, stood in need of daily nourishment. In this article we shall deal with (I) the history of the frequency of Holy Communion, (II) the present practice as enjoined by Pius X.

Strange to say, it was in the Middle Ages, "the Ages of Faith", that Communion was less frequent than at any other period of the Church's history. The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year (c. Omnis utriusque sexus). The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times. The teaching of the great theologians, however, was all on the side of frequent, and to some extent daily, Communion [Peter Lombard, IV Sent., dist. xii, n. 8; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, Q. lxxx, a. 10; St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent., dist. xii, punct. ii, a. 2, q. 2; see Dalgairns, "The Holy Communion" (Dublin) part III, chap. i]. Various reformers, Tauler, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, and Savonarola, advocated, and in many instances brought about, a return to frequent reception. The Council of Trent expressed a wish "that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate" (Sess. XXII, chap. vi). And the Catechism of the council says: "Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule" (pt. II, c. iv, n. 58). As might be expected, the disciples of St. Ignatius and St. Philip carried on the work of advocating frequent Communion. With the revival of this practice came the renewal of the discussion as to the advisability of daily Communion. While all in theory admitted that daily reception was good they differed as to the conditions required.
In Acts, it is said that when the Apostles gathered on the first day of the week, they 'broke bread'. I don't think they didn't share it, like Christ did at the Last Supper, with all who were there.

There can only be benefit for the faithful to receive our Divine Savior in this special way. Evil people will do evil and the evil people will always be with us, but so are the faithful and they need all the help they can spite of the evil
There is some good news.  I see more and more people taking communion on the tongue.  If the Bishops will not act, maybe the laypeople will.
People found ways to steal and desecrate Hosts when distribution was on the tongue alone, often by drying out the mouth to prevent dissolution.  The problem here is not the mode of reception, but the piety and formation of the receiver.  I may be wrong, but weren't the hosts stolen from Brompton distributed on the tongue?

The queue-method of distributing the Eucharist also has a built-in check against "crowd" mentality, and reception solely for appearance' sake.  Whereas at the rail there is nothing to do but receive, in which case our sinner must remain conspicuously in his pew, one conscious of grave sin (or who has broken the fast, or who does not wish to receive for another legitimate reason) may approach the priest in the communion line and, when he reaches him, fold his arms, signaling to the priest that he wishes to receive a blessing instead, which is discreetly administered and noticeable only to those immediately present.  Thereby he is able to avoid the temptation to commit sacrilege for the sake of human respect. 

Once again, the problem here is not the discipline in force, which makes provisions against the very objections that are being raised, but either poor formation in those disciplines, or willful malice, neither of which the disciplines themselves can do anything to correct.

Communion not merely in the hand, but in the home, is attested in the early Church at Alexandria, and extraordinary lay ministration of the Sacrament to the sick is found in Bede's History, an 8th-Century text.  In contemporary discussion of the Alexandrian case, emphasis was laid upon the fact that no one gave to himself what he had not received from another, namely the priest; the thought of "giving oneself communion" was very far from them.  That these disciplines are attested does not mean that anyone may freely adopt them when Church law prohibits them (no Alexandrian tabernacles for shut-ins at the moment [why not in theory, by the way?]), but it certainly means that the Church is unquestionably free to bring out of her treasury both new things and old, and has command over the disciplines by which Sacraments are administered. 

Even if those in Her hierarchy do not always exercise prudence in evaluating the connotations which some disciplinary changes will carry, intrinsically Her disciplines are not per se destructive to the Faith, and may always be taken and observed in an orthodox and salutary way.
In the recent EWTN interview that Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave on the importance of restoring the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, I think he mentioned that in former days long ago, when communion was received in the hand, there were strict precautions that were used which are not used today. For instance, the hands had to be folded in a certain way, and women had to wear gloves. Also, they never actually touched the Sacred Host with their fingers, but rather the host was picked up with the tongue from the palm of the hand. And any leftover fragments on the hand also had to be picked up with the tongue. They were quite fussy in those days, and for good reason.
This is the surest sign that the priests at that church do not believe in transubstantiation. If they did, they would not have reacted with indifference. How do you know what people really believe? Ignore what they say; pay attention to what they do.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)