/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>818111

It's fine but I would only do it if there was no other option.

First time I tried communion on the tongue and then went back to taking in the hand next week because I was feeling awkward and wanted to go back to what was comfortable for me, it just felt wrong to me. Haven't recieved in the hand since then. It's hard working up the courage to do it for the first time if you're the only one around doing it at a NO parish but once I made the switch I couldn't go back anymore.

>>818111

Borderline heresy. The Lord should only be handled by a Priest or at the very least a deacon after a priest has blessed it of course. Besides the very clear lack of respect it also opened the door to people stealing the Eucharist to later profane.

What about dunking?

>>818111 (checked)

No.

I'm a big fan, that way I can take the Lord to satanic rituals or dunk him in my morning coffee. He's also good for feeding ducks.

That is to say, I'm against communion in the hand.

>>818153

People could still hold it it their mouth and spit it out later.

>>818111

It was traditionally prohibited on the grounds that you might drop the Eucharist, which would obviously be a big problem if it happened. Taking communion in the hand is a bigger responsibility than most people realize, but as long as you keep your responsibility to show due reverence to the body of Christ then it's possible to take communion in the hand without any problems.

>>818154

It is a lot harder and the spirit leaves once it starts to dissolve so it is pretty worthless for them then. There is a whole thing about this because people have pondered it.

>>818111

I prefer it on the tongue.

I am against it. Only the hands of the Priest should touch the blessed host. Plus every particle of that host is Christ so to even drop a single crumb off the hand is horrible. If it's on the tongue you're not going to have that issue.

I've also had to reprimand some teenagers for walking off with the host before. I dislike Catholic high schools having their prefects come to mass, they tend to do this crap or receive communion when they're not confirmed.

The Third Council of Constantinople forbids it, and, furthermore, it's still forbidden by Church Law. The people allowing it get an indult.

Since the possessed Anneliese Michel, during her exorcism, is on tape saying things like "Communion in the hand is the best thing you ever did for Satan" (I paraphrase) I cannot conclude that it is a good practice.

>>818111

Christ himself gave of his body in the hand. Communion on the tongue was innovation.

>>818111

it's a ancient practice, the Assyrian Church of the East (aka 'Nestorians') allow it and the Chaldean Catholic Church, they never had a reform of their liturgical rite like latins.

On that note, what do you guys think of laypeople administering the blood of Christ?

>>819215

Blood of Christ I don’t mind because they don’t actually touch it.

>>818770

That’s fine it is also how we reasoned you “could do it” however you shouldn’t out of respect for our Lord was the reason we stopped in the first place. Plus the Assyrian Church is attacked more directly on the field then covertly by a bunch of Satanists.

The earliest churches all took communion in hand

Question for you guys here, what if you were to take Communion by grabbing by you lips and realing it in with tounge? Because thats how O always thought Communion should be taken.

>>819274

That comment reminded me of this video I watched years ago.

At 5:13 the priest talks about the different ways he's seen people take communion.

>>819283

Okay thanks for that.

>>818111

The problem with this post is that the real presence is false teaching. The act is purely symbolic, and only brainlets can actually see the words of Christ and think "oh this bread is literally him, it wasn't just a metaphor, you know, that thing I learned about in the fifth grade"

>>819283

Watched the whole video. Thanks.

>>819290

The Real Presence has been and still is consistently taught. Symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist isn't even shared among all protestant Churches who all claim to have the true interpretation, but a subset of Protestant denominations/churches .

I actually interpreted it the same way when I first picked up the Bible by myself, but you're really going against 1500 years of Christian teaching before and we're all going to give an account of ourselves to God one day (and the Early Church Father's writings are readily available online nowadays).

If the Real Presence is true and it is, what does this say about God's love for us?

>>819290

>John 6:52-55

52{53}The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53{54}Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54{55}He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 55{56}For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

>Jews ask "How can this man give us his flesh to eat"

>Jesus literally responds by telling them his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink

>>818111

Well my parish has expressly asked that we take it by the hand & not to be disruptive & attention seeking by asking for it the other way. So, there's that.

>>819688

It’s not though Communion in the hand is a modernist heresy. Early Christians only considered Communion in the hand okay if it was a time of persecution and in 3 AD the Council of Toledo made Communion in the hand a Excommuicable offense. For 1960 year Communion on the tounge was the only way you were ever allowed to recieve it short of an emergency involving life and death and was backed up by every Saint and Pope until the Second Vatican Council which the Pope confirmed was in no way Doctrinal meaning if you continue to take it in the hand you are committing Sacrilege.

Communion in the hand was and is an Arch Heresy propagated by heretics in the Church who openly deny the real presence of our Lord. Those who brought it back have been punished by the Lord for the crimes they have committed with their actions have taken many souls to hell already.

This error will be erased in our time I assure any Vatican 2 loving insurgents of that. That faith will return to its glory and Our Lady will crush the serpents head and Our Lord will be honored as he is meant to be The King of Kings our Lord God Jesus Christ.

>>819692

>He's against Vatican II

Wew okay Prot

>>818148

You hear about people stealing the Eucharist and people dismiss it as never happening or some conspiracy. I've been going to Mass all my life. I've seen people take the Eucharist and hide it away as they walk away from the priest. They're mostly old ladies that I've seen do it. Who knows what their intentions were, but it shouldn't be happening in the first place.

>>819731

Where do you people live? I live in New York City of all places. While most people take the Host by hand, at least many of them do it respectfully and they all eat it right then and there. The amount of problems you guys spew compared to how I actually see it makes me wonder.

>>819734

I'm not 15 yrs old - olderanon here. I've been going to Mass for a long time and given sufficient time, you're bound to see it all. My first time seeing this was in North Jersey while I was serving as an altar boy. I've seen it sitting in the pews as well in another state. It's very rareand haven't seen it 15-20 yrs, so I'm not trying to paint a picture that it's rampant. But you can't tell me it doesn't happen.

>>819739

I've seen bad things as well, such as someone leaving after consuming the Host. But not as bad as what I read here sometimes. I'm not saying it isn't happening, just that I think it's odd.

This is the way I was shown to do it, I come Catholic through RCIA and watching others at mass. Why should I do it differently?

>>819756

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbx_EHJ-Usc

There was a Marian Apparition called Our Lady of Akita that occurred in Japan in the 1970s. Sister Agnes began to bleed from the palm of her hand meanwhile a wooden statue of Mary began to bleed from the opposing hand. The pain in the palm of Agnes's hand eventually became so intense that she couldn't open that hand for communion so she had to receive communion by tongue. This was interpreted as being a sign that Our Lady disapproves of communion by hand. While this apparition is not approved of by the Church, it is approved of by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxoUW3Tn01Y

Again in the '70s, a girl by the name of Anneliese Michel was struggling with demonic possession. People were able to use the name of Christ to force the demons to talk and the one of the demons said that communion in the hand was his doing.

Personally, this is what convinced me to make the switch to communion on the tongue. That and my own personal experience. I used to take communion by hand. When I decided to switch and thought to myself "On the tongue, from the priest" I immediately felt like my soul was going to leave my body and shoot up straight into the heavens above.

To be honest though, if you do end up disregarding everything I've said here, that's completely understandable as it all lacks some kind of undeniable objectivity.

Didn't exist in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches for 1900+ years. So it's complete bullshit.

Even today, no Orthodox Christian would dare to consider receiving Communion in the hand. Much less would there be any opportunity for him to do so.

>>819873

>Didn't exist in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches for 1900+ years

A quick google search says your wrong.

A lot of people in this thread are saying not to take Communion in the hand, which I've never heard before, and then I see this post >>818740

Can someone explain this to me?

>>819774

Doesn't the Church have a "no comment" status on both events?

>>819897

>a lot of tradcats have this knee-jerk, misguided idea that older is automatically better

No, modernists do. It's called archaelogism.

The justification for communion in the hand is that the older Church did it, don't kid yourself. It was actually stopped (and condemned) very early on because it erodes faith in the Eucharist.

>Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See

Pius XII is condemning the idea that we need to go "back" to the early Church because gee, the Tridentine Mass is simply too Catholic. Every single thing condemned there by Pius XII is widely in use today.

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/364-archaeologism.html

>>819885

>A lot of people in this thread are saying not to take Communion in the hand, which I've never heard before, and then I see this post

>which I've never heard before

Lord have mercy.

>>819912

Reminds me of this.

>>819897

Decent post, but I have never once heard any sensible argument as to why communion in hand is better, whereas kneeling on the tongue is obviously more reverent. It's an interesting case in which one side is arguing that it's equivalent, and the other arguing that it's inferior.

Granted, it's crazy to argue that it's illicit or that it's sinful to receive in hand given that the Church permits it, but it seems that the NO and communion in hand are symbolic issues that signify a deeper battle going on.

>>819920

>given that the Church permits it

With an indult, which means that Church law still does not permit it.

>>818148

>The Lord should only be handled by a Priest

Priests are not more holy than normal people, or did you miss the sex scandals?

>>819923

Sorry, this is plain wrong. First of all, the hands of the priest are specifically anointed so that he can touch our Lord. The priest has an ontologically different character than that of a layman. He is an Alter Christus. He consecrates bread and wind into our Lord. He forgives sins. The modern tendency to diminish the difference between clergy and laity is wrong and actually incredibly damaging to the faith. The scandals are 90% homosexual in nature, don't ever forget that fact.

>>819906

I don't know the Church's stance on the demonic possession of Anneliese but I believe in the case of Our Lady of Akita, you're correct that there is a "no comment" status, yes.

>>819912

> it erodes faith in the Eucharist.

There's that magical thinking I just got done talking about.

Please explain the exact mechanism by which placing the host in the hand vs on the tongue "erodes faith".

>>819920

That, I can agree with. There are more and less reverent ways to do pretty much every action in a mass (even traditionalists distinguish between a high and a low mass), but I refuse to elevate it to the level of sinfulness or "eroding faith".

>>819931

Putting something in your nasty, germ-ridden mouth is somehow lesser "touching" than touching with the fingers?

what.

Jesus did not place the bread in the apostle's mouths.

>>819952

It's self-evident. The kneeling deferential manner (sticking out of the tongue and closing of the eyes) reinforces to everyone that we are receiving something sacred, the most sacred of all. Communion in the hand also allows particles of the host to be scattered about. Each particle is our Lord. But, most of all, as was pointed out, it was forbidden at the Third Council of Constantinople and is still contrary to Church law. And it's interesting how you rebuke "trads" for clinging to the past and yet the entire justification is that Jesus gave Himself to the apostles in their hands. We'll, the early Church tried that, and then realized that many did not believe in the Real presence. Silly how this entire debate had been shut and closed but now we have to rehash it because of modernism. Our Lord also made the apostles Bishops from laymen, something that Church law forbids, no? You essentially ignore that entire post and toss it aside as "magical thinking" when it profoundly concerns the errors of our very time.

>>819953

Do you even know what anointing of the hands is? And He goes into our mouths anyways, but putting our Lord in the hands while we stand (and, if you read Trent, it forbids this very act–Eucharist handled by a layman) by a layman is disrespectful and also contrary to dogmas and councils. There is no justification.

>>819950

They should really investigate more into it, so us faithful can either really on another miracle as insight or to know to stay away from it as falsehoods.

>>819950

I just looked up Anneliese, never heard of her. Is it unusual for people to starve during exorcism rites?

>>820011

Very unusual. Generally the demons won’t kill the person because if they do they have to go back to Hell so something went wrong probably the fact they were giving to much info to the priests and being recorded.

Another issue is in the past 100 years demons have grown more powerful. According to Fr Chad Ripperger it used to take an exorcist 1-2 days to remove a demon and any longer was considered abnormal now it can take years to remove demons. Look into it it is interesting and it all happened in the 50’s-60’s things like removing blessed salts and exorcism blessing from holy water, deemphasis on hell and demons, removal of the Saint Michael Prayer from the end of mass, sacramentals and devotions being ignored or treated like old superstition, Communion in the hand all these thing started happening and suddenly demons grow stronger and bolder.

>>818740

>>819953

…The Apostles were Bishops. It was outlawed as early as the second century as was pointed out by >>820008

And Scripture (Saint Paul) says that those who receive the Body and Blood unworthily receive judgment upon themselves. Remember that God struck Uzzah dead. Nobody ever, in history, received the Eucharist standing from a so-called "Eucharistic minister" (layman) before the Novus Ordo. You know who did give communion in the hand while everyone stood? Luther. Because he said that it was bread. Why do you think faith in transubstantiation is non-existent today? If you tell someone to receive communion in the hand from a layman, and tell him it's Corpus Christi, God Incarnate, he might say "Yeah, okay, this is Jesus" but he'll tacitly see it as a symbol. It's not that hard to understand.

It is still outlawed in canon law. Anyone who touches the blessed Sacrament with their hands who is not a Priest or Deacon with a Priest present is breaking canon law.

Pope Paul VI repeatedly told people this.