|
0 members (),
349
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,618
Members6,172
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
I hope we all agree that it is best that it be received reverently and administered in whatever fashion will most foster this reverence. Still a lot of that is up to the faithful, but I may be of the opinion that disallowing people to receive it in hand may be helpful in getting them to think about what they are actually receiving.
While I favor the communion in tongue and not in hand, I do think that receiving in hand may have been practiced even earlier in church history. At least this quote from Cyril of Jerusalem in 390 seems to indicate. In that case allowing the faithful to receive it in hand is actually a return to an older practice unless I misunderstand this quote.
"Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, �Amen.� Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?"
Cyril of Jerusalem in 390 AD I was wondering if someone was going to post this quote. I respect the discipline of the Latin Church in giving communion on the tongue. But I do not think communion on the palm is any less reverent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
Communion in the hand is by way of a indult, simply let it expire...
james
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 442
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 442 |
Hmmmm. I guess receiving the Precious Blood of Our Lord is out then unless intinction is used which is probably unlikely.
Converted Viking
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
This is a violation of their right to receive communion either way they prefer, it is not up to you or others to inforce it on them. That is not true! The rituals of the TLM are to be preserved when the TLM is served. Thus, No Altar Girls, No communion in the Hand, etc... Hmmmm. I guess receiving the Precious Blood of Our Lord is out then unless intinction is used which is probably unlikely. That is correct.
Last edited by Ray S.; 06/28/08 09:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Hmmmm. I guess receiving the Precious Blood of Our Lord is out then unless intinction is used which is probably unlikely.
Converted Viking Not offering the Precious Blood of Our Lord is something I personally find to be deeply troubling. Ryan
Last edited by Athanasius The L; 06/29/08 12:07 AM. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Why would intinction be out? It was used before the "Novus Ordo" was on the scene.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 439
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 439 |
Intinction by the priest or the deacon (or even the extra-ordinary minister of communion) is still allowed under the new General Introduction. What is not allowed, however, is the apparently reasonably widespread practice of the laity, where they approached, received the blessed body in their hand, and then performed the intinction themselves.
It is the symbolism of the laity taking communion and not receiving it, that has been corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Using an "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" apart from a genuine and undeniable necessity, would be highly imprudent in the context of a celebration of Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII.
Communion under both species, however, was directly authorized by Sacrosanctum Concilium, several years before the introduction of the Novus Ordo.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1 |
Intinction by the priest or the deacon (or even the extra-ordinary minister of communion) is still allowed under the new General Introduction. What is not allowed, however, is the apparently reasonably widespread practice of the laity, where they approached, received the blessed body in their hand, and then performed the intinction themselves.
It is the symbolism of the laity taking communion and not receiving it, that has been corrected. Intinction ,by an ExtraOrdinary Minister of Holy Communion is not allowed - it may be Administered ONLY by a Priest or Deacon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 177 |
There is no such restriction in the General Instruction(2000). The pertinent rule simply states: 245. The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.
|
|
|
|
|
