Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. Make this Cardinal Pope

   Posted By: Gareth

2. It is hard to believe that the head of the Congregation could be so subjective about what is purely a devotional preference.
   To look at the Host before placing it on our own tongues is far more devotional to many. It reminds us, too that our hands are consecrated by what we have received into them.
   Maybe the Cardinal would prefer not to receive the Chalice! As a priest who has had the luxury of holding the Host in his hands for many years, it would seem that hs is not the one to judge what is appropriate for the laity.
   Since over 90% of australians prefer to receive in the hand, maybe they have already voted. This is not a doctrinal issue, and if it were we should want to receive in the way Jesus gave.

   Posted By: Fr Nicholas Punch O.P.

3. As I read this report of an interview with Cardinal Llovera, I hoped that his remarks have been taken out of context. The Cardinal's lavish praise for receiving communion on the tongue and other associated devotional practices seemed to contradict basic liturgical principles. That's not surprising in a telephone interview which may reflect a particular cultural setting/practice.
   As reported, the Cardinal's remarks make no reference to 'full, conscious and active participation' (Vatican 2), the ideal for which we strive in liturgy. While it is the communicant's choice to receive in the hand or on the tongue, reception of communion should reflect the UNITY of the assembly which is the Body of Christ.
   This emphasis is evident in the Australian Bishops directives earlier this year that communicants should make a simple bow of the head and stand to receive communion. Receiving communion is a public act, not a private act of devotion. Encouragement of other devotional practices runs counter to the unity that the Eucharist should express.
   The 2007 General Instruction on the Roman Missal asks us to avoid 'private inclination or arbitrary choice' (n 42) and 'to shun any appearance of individuation or division' (n 95).
   We celebrate Eucharist together as the Body of Christ and we listen together to the Word, and we receive Christ together in the consecrated bread and wine. Being together, being one, is what it's about and we need to avoid practices that compromise this unity, including praying personal devotions such as the Rosary and leaving Mass early!
   I am reminded of St Augustine's words in Sermon 272 when he speaks of how communion both expresses what we are becoming and who we really are as the Body of Christ - 'Be what you see and receive what you are!' A good place to start!

   Posted By: Marty

4. Jesus came among us. He surely desires to live among us, rather than distanced by exaggerated body positions. I receive Communion in the hand because in the words of Scripture at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist Jesus says "Take and eat..", and I find, as an extraordinary minister of Communion,giving on the hand is far more hygenic than getting someone's saliva on my hand to pass on to the next recipient as I pick up the next host.
   I demonstrate my belief in the Real Presence by the fact that I present for Communion. I surely don't have to kneel and have someone place the Host on my tongue to show my belief. God is among us in the ordinariness of our lives. Jesus gave us himself as food and drink, the basics of life. No one puts my other food into my mouth for me....! I fear also, thatt those promoting this kind of Eucharist devotion are those who have a Jesus and me mentality and forget that We, the Church, are the Body of Christ. We become what we eat....we have a duty to live out the Body of Christ by being Christ present in all aspects of life, not just in Church.

   Posted By: Mary Murphy

5. It is nice to hear that the new prefect likes communion on the tongue.
   
   I will still be receiving communion in the hand however as it is the more ancient custom of receiving communion dating back at least to 300AD
   
   'the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making "the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King" (Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem)

   Posted By: Elias Nasser

6. When it comes to receiving the Sacred Host of Christ the Redeemer, the last thing I'm concerned with is whether my devotion is judged more devotional by the way I receive Christ-on the tongue or in the hand. What does concern me is the cleanliness and germ free status of the hand in a global world of disease. The rest is all semantics.

   Posted By: xazron

7. When will the Vatican learn something about cross-cultural values and sensitivities? I am not sure what values and customs are held by various cultures around the world but in such matters as how to show "reverence" and "respect" I am sure it varies greatly. We need intelligent realistic leadership from Vatican officials not mindless veiled threats to bully people into conformism.

   Posted By: Peter Maher

8. When will the Vatican learn something about cross-cultural values and sensitivities. I am not sure what values and customs are held by various cultures around the world but in such matters as how to show "reverence" and "respect" I am sure it varies greatly. We need intelligent realistic leadership from Vatican officials not mindless veiled threats to bully people into conformism.

   Posted By: Peter Maher

9. With respect to his Eminence, the instruction of Jesus to his disciples at the Last Supper was I believe "to take" and "to eat" Surely taking Holy Communion in the hand can also indicate reverence and devotion to the prescence of Jesus. As a priest of 36 years who has the privilege of giving Holy Communion each day to the laity, the reverence and respect of those receiving in the hand is humbling

   Posted By: Dee Bee

10. (Fr Punch)"It is hard to believe that the head of the Congregation could be so subjective about what is purely a devotional preference."
    A "preference" is by definition subjective. Everyone else here is freely expressing his own preference. Why should Cd Canizares be prohibited from expressing his?
    
    "over 90% of Australians prefer to receive in the hand"
    What, has there been a survey done on this? I certainly haven't seen it.
    
    "He is not the one to judge what is appropriate for the laity.... they have already voted."
    Well that's the way they do things in the Congregationalists and some other protestant denominations, but in the Catholic Church popes, bishops and priests decide what is appropriate for the laity all the time. Just as Our Lord told them to.
    
    "we should want to receive in the way Jesus gave."
    And this way was....?
    And you know this because....?
    
    Marty, how on earth does receiving communion on the tongue "contradict basic liturgical principles" detract from (rather than promote) " 'full, conscious and active participation'", make communion "a private act of devotion", "run counter to the unity that the Eucharist should express", or prevent us from living St Augustine's exhortation to "'Be what you see and receive what you are!'"???
    
    What does it have to do with your bizarre and totally irrelevant introduction of "praying personal devotions such as the Rosary and leaving Mass early!"
    
    "The 2007 General Instruction on the Roman Missal asks us to avoid 'private inclination or arbitrary choice' (n 42) and 'to shun any appearance of individuation or division' (n 95)."
    Indeed. So, as according to the GIRM and other standard liturgical documents receiving on the tongue is the standard, normal method, and receiving on the hand is only allowed by indult (exceptional permission granted to only some dioceses), the passage you quoted seems to urge us NOT to receive in the hand.
    
    Mary M and Xazron, the hygiene issue has been researched and is a non-issue. Provided the priest or communion minister uses the correct technique, communion on the tongue has, if anything, less risk of disease transmission than communion in the hand.
    
    Elias, "the end of the fourth century" is 400 AD, not 300 AD. And this quote referring to the practice in St Cyril's community does not make "receiving communion in the hand ... the more ancient custom". In fact this passage from near the end of the ancient period is the sole ancient reference to the practice. But there are numerous ancient references, some from long before St Cyril's time, to receiving on the tongue.

    Posted By: Ronk

11. In my ministry I try help the People of God reverence the "real presence" by taking into their anointed hands, this sacred food into whom they truly are, the body of Christ. As Augustine said, "You are what you eat." But also, you are what you have been baptized and anointed to be. The people, are real presences of Christ ("whatever you do to the least of my little ones you do to me.....," that includes the face in the mirror). After communnion, "take and eat ..." they go forth, nurtured and energized, for their missioned work - the building of the Kingdom, the "incarnating" of Christ today.
    Please, let's avoid whatever is going to diminish what Christ himself did. Jesus made everything "incarnationally real." He did not come along and "hyper- spiritualized the real." He kept it simple and ordinary, but made very "sacred", yet so extraordinarily approachable.
    In Jesus, we have been respected enough that our human-divine encounters allow us to "experience" a relationship of transforming love. It's bread and wine - yes, body and blood - but, but not as object to be overwhelmed by, but as food to take and eat.
    Our encounters and relationship with our Creator is the when and where we should take off our shoes, be profoundly awed, overwhelmed, silenced before the "beyondness" of it all.
    But Jesus is the one who is going to wash our feet, invite to a fish fry on the beach, keep telling us to "not be afraid," even have friends who are unacceptable in the eyes of those who "watched him." I believe Jesus would be uncomfortable with the kind of response and "reverence" promoted here.
    He'd rather see us continually ready to "follow Him" in the Kingdom work - on our feet, receiving our provisions, and trusting in our Lord and Master that just looking into His eyes transforms our every step we take - His look of love Spirit empowers us.

    Posted By: Fr. Gene

12. Elias Nasser gave us that beautiful quote of Cyril of Jerusalem, showing that the custom of receiving the Body of Christ in the hand was very early indeed in the life of the Church.
    I am grateful that the Australian Bishops have given us the option to receive in this way, and hope that the privilege will never be revoked.
    To receive in the hand gives one that extra moment to look, to revere, and to smile at the tremendous gift. So often we are given the host in such a manner as to practically remove the possibility of reverence. Why the rush? Rarely does one find a priest who takes his time to distribute the Body of Christ in a reverent and unhurried way, befitting the occasion.
    As for kneeling, I'm afraid that I have reached the time of life when to kneel is difficult and clumsy. What is wrong with standing in the presence of God for goodness sake? There is a way of standing which can be every bit as reverent as prostrating.
    And as for those who promote the tongue because it is "irreverent to handle the Host," I can tell you, I have sinned far more with that little member than with my hands.
    It is the love and reverence in the heart which counts, surely.

    Posted By: Ro Ro

13. When I was a boy I received the sacred host on the tongue, kneeling, as I was taught. Then I was instructed to receive the Lord standing, on my hand, and I did so and continue to do so. I am happy to return to my knees and my tongue if the celebrant or the bishop or the the successor of Peter asks it. In either posture, we are called to surrender our hearts to the gift of God present in the Eucharist. It is the heart that counts. But we do need external forms and norms.

    Posted By: Nicholas Batten

14. It is alway a puzzle to me that the tongue is deemed a more worthy reception place than the hand.
    As a Special Minister of the Eucharist in 'the old days' I would often feel a bit nauseous when I saw the tongue on which I was to place the Body of Christ!

    Posted By: Thomas Curran

15. Another really old man choosing to take another backward step in the Church. In the Consecration the words I believe are "Take and Eat for This is My Body", not receive and Eat for this is My Body. If these changes keep going there will be no one in the Church to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament at all. Some people cannot kneel at all or prostrate themselves as the Cardinal says because of health problems. Will this inability to kneel prevent them from receiving the Blessed Sacrament at Mass? If so this does not encourage a person who does respect and love the Mass and its true meaning to continue going on a daily basis. Wake up, do not go backwards as there are many who do respect the Blessed Sacrament even more now than in the past decades.

    Posted By: Ann Barfoot

16. Amazing.One who doesn't understand Eucharist is a Cardinal! Or is it amazing?

    Posted By: Des Welladsen.

17. Peter Maher, do you actually know of anybody who is put out or offended by the Church's various permitted means of showing reverence and respect for the Blessed Eucharist, because of his ethnic cultural background? If not, your rant against "Vatican officials" itself seems "mindless".

    Posted By: Ronk

18. This is wonderful! Hopefully, the Cardinal's words will strengthen the resolve of Catholics who exercise their right to receive communion on the tongue, especially in a kneeling posture. Message to Peter Maher - the Cardinal's words may also be a counter to those priests who 'bully' parishioners to receive communion standing and/or on the tongue. Message to Elias Nasser - if you prefer comunion on the tongue because it is the more ancient practice you should by your own logic support Pope Paul VI's ban on the use of contraception - for the Pope was merely also re-affirming an ancient and consistent prohibition - one attested to by the Didache (c. AD 90 - 150).

    Posted By: Michael Bernard

19. Good on the Cardinal. At present we have a choice and I'm quite happy with that. But those long accustomed to receiving on the tongue should be able to continue to do so. A bit of variety here and there should not be frowned on.

    Posted By: BALANCED

20. At last! As an Extraordinary Minister,I shudder when I recall the state of some of the hands I've had to place the BODY OF OUR GOD! Also,the smell of cigarettes! No doubt the Church will be criticised even for this.But it is time to "Educate"the People of God" and this must come from the PARISH PRIEST or someone responsible in the Parish!

    Posted By: M.M.

21. The most unrepresentative 'local' Australian diocesan and parish directives in many places is still a defiant and angry refusal to accept the tradition of the Church. The tradition of the Church is the true representative of the Catholic people in that it makes us happy by respecting us and giving to us our right to reverence God by genuflecting and kneeling and receiving Our Lord on the tongue for Holy Communion.
    Why won't many of our priests and bishops just show us laity basic respect in this regard?

    Posted By: Michael Webb

22. The majority receive Our Lord in the hand in Holy Communion not because they spontaneously desire to do so but because the modernistic clergy from Holland and then the rest of the world's clergy of the modernistic/liberal bet decided for us laity.
    The mantra of 'the majority' is an invention to suit the agenda of those clergy who are hostile to Sacred Tradition.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

23. This seems like another attempt to elevate the priest and keep control of the liturgy out of the hands of the laity.
    Make us bow before the priest! Laity aren't worthy to wash the cups. I've had priests tell me they much prefer to give the host in people's hands - they're not into having folks lick their fingers.
    Why doesn't the Vatican worry about real problems - like why more and more are leaving the Church.
    

    Posted By: sharon ryan

24. I am very glad to hear about this turn of events. Receiving communion on the tongue is far more devotional.
    
    I've always received it on my tongue.

    Posted By: K. Van Keith

25. Here come the Ritual Police and their Head-Prefect...
    Get a life seriously, the body of Christ in the person of the refugee, the sick, the persecuted, the famine, the oppressed, the gay and lesbian people, the aborigines is violated every day; and all you bunch can worry about is the how to receive the Sacrament?!... what a whole lot of abomination, the hypocrisy is scandalous!

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

26. Bloody pathetic a Cardinal!
    Get off your gold chains and diamond crosses, thick-gold-rings, choir-dresses with laces and red-velvet slippers and live in the reality of so many millions of hungry children around the world, deprived of basic food and clean water, over half a billion in the world live only on one meal a day!...
    The lack of perspective is scandalous, and all he could help to figure is: Communion on 'Hand' or 'Mouth'?!
    
    If only he could see which finger I'm pointing to him.
    Holy God, where are you in the church?... the injustice and scandals... where are you God?!

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

27. And a very erudite discussion ensued.At least in this beautiful country of Australia we can go to Holy Mass every day if we wish to, and which I do strive to maintain.At this Divine Sacrifice CHRIST HIMSELF, is present on the altar, right there where I can actually see HIM. I see HIS SACRED BODY raised up at the Consecration, I se the CHALICE containing HIS SACRED BLOOD raised up. CHRIST is there. Do any of you really think that HE cares how we actually receive HIM. AS LONG AS WE DO RECEIVE HIM AS OFTEN AS WE POSSIBLY CAN? In a lot of countries people are denied the glory of the Holy Mass, the glory of the Consecration, the glory and wonder of being able to actually receive CHRIST, and all I read of your contributions is as I previously said, an erudite discussion of what you people deem what JESUS wants.   I'll tell what HE wants, purity of heart, love of GOD, gratitude that we have the right to receive HIM as often as we can.
    
    

    Posted By: Dean Williams

28. "Why doesn't the Vatican worry about real problems - like why more and more are leaving the Church."
    
    Sharon Kelly,
    
    A lack of understanding and respect for the body of Christ is one of the major reasons people are leaving the church.
    
    From a purely psychological perspective, the extraordinary act of putting something directly into somebody's mouth rather than into their hands is a clear signal of the importance of that object. Can you imagine olympic athletes simply being handed their medals? Or a king or queen having their crown passed to them so that they can plonk it on their head themselves?
    
    Let's face it, medals and crowns don't compare to Christ, yet many people who receive communion in the hand (no doubt reverently in some cases) would be aghast at the thought of a cheapening of Olympic tradition.
    
    This is not to say that getting people to take communion in the mouth is going to stop people leaving the church, but helping people to understand the significance of receiving the body of our Lord probably isn't going to drive them away, is it? At least not those who are genuine in their faith.

    Posted By: soothsayer

29. T.J
    
    Keep the posts coming mate.
    
    You dissenters make your useless cause more and more pathetic every post.
    
    Every time I read your rants I praise God for traditional Catholicism

    Posted By: Ian.hasit

30. Oh Lordy Lord...
    The worship in the Mass (not worshipping the Mass) is a lot of things to a lot of people; It's not a neo-Nazi salutation session to Christ.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

31. " Extraordinary Minister,I shudder when I recall the state of some of the hands I've had to place the BODY OF OUR GOD!"
    
    Jesus was born in a filthy manger.
    The level of theological understanding is shuddering.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

32. God does answer prayers, I have been praying for the return of the Latin Mass and the return of the reverence that is due the Holy Eucharist.

    Posted By: Fredric Ashland

33. If there is something WRONG in what he said, point it out, if not, why do you attack him? (cf. John 18, 23)

    Posted By: Dr. Brancik

34. There was a time in the Middle Ages when reverence for the Eucharist was out of all proportion to what it should been.I hope this latest move is not an attempt to drag us back to that.We've been dragged back far enough in recent times.

    Posted By: Bill Brady

35. "From a purely psychological perspective, the extraordinary act of putting something directly into somebody's mouth rather than into their hands is a clear signal of the importance of that object."
    
    Of course! Because the tongue is the most sacred part of the body, so much more sacred and important than the hands, or the feet, or the nose. It is intrinsically superior to the alternatives...
    
    "Can you imagine olympic athletes simply being handed their medals? Or a king or queen having their crown passed to them so that they can plonk it on their head themselves?
    
    Let's face it, medals and crowns don't compare to Christ, yet many people who receive communion in the hand (no doubt reverently in some cases) would be aghast at the thought of a cheapening of Olympic tradition. "
    
    Yes, I imagine people would go "Oh what disrespect they are showing Ian Thorpe/Queen Elizabeth by not putting that medal on them!" I have my doubts that they would exclaim "Oh what disrespect they are showing to that Gold Medal/The Crown!" That particular tradition is about showing respect to the person receiving the award/gift/medal, not so much the object in question. If any Olympian or royal family member would feel more comfortable receiving their medals and crowns in their hands so they can put them on themselves, I don't think we should object.

    Posted By: Alex Knight

36. Methinks that the Vatican , as usual seems quite out of touch with reality! The comment fails to make allowance for cultural norms as well.Jesus always wished us to respect Him as both human and divine.I am hopeful that this was a personal opinion from the Cardinal. Respect for the reality of Jesus' presence is what is needed, not the method of reception!
    Gavin.

    Posted By: Gavin O'Brien

37. T J Lawson is a solicitor and many of them these days hold these kinds of anti Tradition views with a deep level of hostility. 'Law reform' is often their playground for schadenfreude upon the rest of us i.e. the traditional family unit. Many lawyers promote agendas that traditional people disdain.
    Sadly, many of the priests and bishops privately agree with the views and writings of T J Lawson.
    

    Posted By: Michael Webb

38. How can these men, living in their ivory towers, try to tell us this is a more reverential way of receiving Holy Communion or that it is a greater way of acknowledging the real presence! Tongues and mouths are no more sacred than hands! How wonderful are our hands - they welcome, embrace, touch and so forth. Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem all those centuries ago (348AD) in keeping with the Church's tradition, asked people to, "...make your left hand a throne for the right one, which is to receive the King. With your hand hollowed, receive the body of Christ and answer 'Amen'...". Those who think these words or messages from some Cardinal is going to bring people back to the Church or make the reception of Holy Communion more holy or sacred have got rocks in their heads and are out of touch. They should have a look at what is the Church's real tradition of receiving Holy Communion and it is certainly not the more recent practice of sticking out a tongue to welcome the King of Kings.

    Posted By: Fr John Girdauskas

39. If people had more reverence for the Eucharist and the family, all the problems of the world that people have listed here would more easily be solved. From little things great things grow.

    Posted By: Markodan

40. Thanks for this info Michael,
    
    Notice how a lawyer has the hypocrisy to start pointing the finger at figures at the Vatican when he probably has twice the wealth that men working there probably do and probably puts in half as much effort to help the poor.
    
    I think Jesus had something to say about people like this
    'Hypocrites, take the log out of your own eye, before judging the speck in others'.
    
    We are proud to be Catholic and proud of the Church's every teaching and we will fight anti-Catholic and all the hypocrites claims against our beloved Church.
    
    Christ is on the traditionalists' side.

    Posted By: Ian

41. I always was taught and understood that the Eucharist was celebration of the last Supper.
    
    I cannot recall any Gospel verse that suggested Jesus placed the bread on the Apostles' tongues on that occasion !

    Posted By: Chris

42. I disagree wholeheartly with Fr John Girdauskas assement and sadly note that he is a priest of the Archdiocese I belong to.
    
    The sad fact is that he and all like minded priests are out of touch with many people in the pews who want reverence and the sacred returned to the Church that has been quietly demolished in our Church over the last forty years.
    
    If his diocese is anything to go by then I hardly think the amount of young men (being zero) that have presented themselves to be priests in his Diocese over the last ten years is a standard of a shining example.
    
    Lots of young men in the Sydney and FSSP Seminaries though are all taking communion on the tongue.
    
    If he bothered to read history he would find that communion in the tongue is actually the historical practice of the Church and is actually the ordinary form as present.
    
    He would even see that communion in the hand was actually introduced illegally.
    
    Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): "it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand";
    
    Origen (185-232 A.D.): "You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence." (13th Homily on Exodus);
    
    St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);
    
    The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;
    
    The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;
    
    The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;
    
    Council of Trent: "To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body.
    
    So come on Fr John, give the good Cardinal some respect and present some real facts before blurting off inaccuracies.
    
    You are doing your Diocese shame.
    

    Posted By: Gareth

43. As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?"
    
    She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. "
    
    Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'
    
    Down with all modernists and liberals with their communion in the hand. Let's pray this Church teaching changes back to its original form and reverence is returned to Holy Mother Church.

    Posted By: Ian

44. I cannot believe the crassness of some of the comments here. Firstly, it is western tradition to receive communion kneeling, and on the tongue. When I converted from Anglicanism, I found it distinctly odd that Catholics didn't commonly receive on the tongue, kneeling.
    
    Fr. Punch's opinions are in the order they are expressed, illogical and unfounded. What on earth does reception of communion under both kinds, by the priest, which is necessary for the Mass to be valid, have to do with reception of communion in the hand? How do you know, Father, the preference of 90% of Australians? Have you asked them?
    
    Marty, may I in my turn begin by reminding you that communion in the hand began by judicial fiat/arbitrary choice? And that unity isn't the same thing as uniformity? Least of all in Augustine's thought, which is much too complex to be synthesized into one quote from one sermon taken completely out of context.
    
    Dee Bee and Ann Barfoot, the priest who is acting in the same role as Jesus, and the apostles after him, is called to take and eat. The congregation is in a different position. It would be true that we are receiving and eating even if we *receive* on the hand. Which is why self-communion is highly illicit.
    
    I might remind some people here that kneeling is not obligatory even in the EF if you are infirm (Inability to kneel has never excluded people from communion), let alone in the Novus Ordo, and that the introduction of communion in the hand post-dates the Novus Ordo, and was initially done as a massive act of disobedience, and then as a special concession, which became universalized.
    
    Sharon, one *could* argue (if one were so minded) that there is an easy way to reverse the glorification of the priest, make him face God, rather than us.
    
    Michael, TJL is a solicitor!!?? How does he make a living, then? I mean, the guy can't make a connected argument.
    
    Fr. John, I don't know what you mean by 'recent'? I suppose you have taken to thinking you are God in whose eyes a thousand years are like yesterday, come and gone.
    
    Nicholas Batten, your comment was a breath of fresh air! Thank you.
    
    For my part, I am still in ecstasy over Card. Canizares' appointment. Happy and Blessed Christmas to all!

    Posted By: Adeodatus

45. How these Catholics love one another.
    
    Folks, did St Paul love his faith TOO much before his conversion experience? I'd suggest he did, because his desire to do God's will more than anything else (he kept telling us later) led him to...murder.
    
    I wonder how many Catholics (on both sides of understanding) love their faith too much? I think you can easily tell: by the way they speak to each other. The character who fascinates me more now in the Prodigal Son story is the older brother, the one who, as everyone knows, does the right thing all the time: he lives as a good Jewish young man should in every way imaginable according to the Torah. And yet, when his sinful brother returns home it is clear his older brother cannot stand a bar of him ("him and his women") and refuses to go in and party when hid father invites him. Why? Because he cannot forgive or love his brother.
    
    Can I leave you guys with an image? It's only a story but it is based on the comments I have just made.
    
    One Day members of Catholic bloggers groups all arrive at the Pearly Gates together. And find they are naturally standing in 2 groups, with those they tend to agree with. A young boy radiating infinite goodness appears and welcomes them all inside. One woman says "we can't come in; we haven't been judged yet." The boy laughs and laughs. "YOU decide when to come in," he said. "This is a Place of love and joy; nothing else can enter and survive in here. As soon as you find joy in each other and love each other dearly, just come in."
    
    He went away and the two groups felt a real heaviness in their hearts because many of them had spent so much of their adult lives telling off dissident or old-fashioned Catholics that they had forgotten what was most important: the way they treated each other.
    
    For the full story: mike.y@iinet.net.au MIKE YATES

    Posted By: Mike Yates

46. I suppose Fr. Punch would be happy for people to receive Our Lord standing on their heads - or perhaps lying down! So, Father, can I call you Nick, or perhaps Punchy? After all it's only a convention that we call you Father isn't it?

    Posted By: Paul

47. Gareth, your ON AND ONs about councils and Popes are quite over the top. Jesus had neither; he gave himself utterly, vulnerably and nakedly, even to those who violated everything that is 'HIM'; the Eucharist is as John Girdauskas attest to; your insolence and arrogance speak volume of shame on your own pontificating; how arrogant. Gareth, you have little respect for anyone who has a different truth from your narcissistic version.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

48. Adeodatus, your standing is as wobbly as your swapping of religious allegiance. Stick to God, then perhaps you'll find it less important to choose sides. My occupation is none of your business...and you going on abour 'Crass Comments', please, spare me your venom.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

49. Markodan, you're back in your Catholic-Nazi-Disneyland mode again... oh God, help us.

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

50. Ian.hasit, how narrow can you be...?

    Posted By: TJ Lawson

51. Mike Yates,
    
    What you wrote is profound and perfect for this time of year.
    
    Thank-you.

    Posted By: paul

52. As long as the Pope is in favour of it then there is no reasonable opposition to this reformation. To say this is against unity is an outrageous claim since the thing that unifies all of us is our obedience to the Holy Father. If the pope (represented by the Head of Congregation) believes that this will lead people to give the Lord a higher respect which is His due, then it must. Even quoting past decisions made in past times is usesless. Decisions change. That is why God gave us a Pope. Now we must trust in God and obey His new representitive here on Earth.
    Even if a lot of Australian and American Bishops and Priests were asking people to recieve from hands, the time for change is obviously now.
    Respect for the Eucharist has quite obviously dropped in most Churches and now this is is the Pope's response. It makes me proud to have a courageous leader who would stand up and go against the world to do what is right.

    Posted By: Alex

53. Has this cardinal been in a coma for forth years or is he just a plain dill with his head in the sand? I'll say nothing more as I think he is disgusting. I agree with Mary Murphy.

    Posted By: Marcia

54. T.J Lawson,
    
    which part of 'you are worng" don't you understand?
    
    As an anti-Catholic like yourself, who is the excact opposite to Jesus Christ in every way, probably not much.
    
    I think somebody put it pretty clearly. If T.J's antics are representaive of what liberal and dissenting Catholicism stand for, THANK GOD I prescribe to traditional Catholicism.

    Posted By: Gareth

55. Hello T J Lawson,
    
    I noticed you are ticking a lot of people off here individually.
    That isn't what warm and cuddly liberal Catholics are meant to do, is it?
    That's the kind of thing that you allege that people like me have a monopoly on. LOL.
    

    Posted By: Michael Webb

56. TJ, I think you are missing the point. By receiving communion on the tongue, it greatly reduces the chances of having pieces of the Blessed Sacrament falling on the ground. Secondly, it eliminates the chances of somebody putting the Blessed Sacrament in his pocket for desecration later (known to happen with Satanists). Lastly, it eliminates handling by grubby hands. It all boils down to having respect for the Body of Christ…no small thing.

    Posted By: Invictus Maneo

57. TJ. You are weird. If more people showed love and respect to each other all the problems of the world would be solved. That is what Jesus taught: Love one another. It is because people have not listened to Jesus that there are so many problems in the world. What is your gripe? Or are you saying Jesus is a dreamer and what he asked us to try to do is impossible? Your attitude makes it impossible. I am sorry that you find forgiveness so difficult. I'd rather be a dreamer than be anything like you.
    TJ you do yourself no favours by always insulting people or is that how you behave in court? I have commented on your views and in my opinion they are not Catholic, but are weird. I have not insulted you personally, as I don't know you, and probably wouldn't want to, so in all fairness could you stop the insulting remarks (which you throw at everybody in this forum) and try to base you views on something more grounded in reality.
    On this topic, I prefer Communion in the hand as I know what my reverence is. I have given Communion as an EM and putting the host on someone's tongue is not reverent, particularly if you get your fingers wet!

    Posted By: Markodan

58. As a former Acolyte, I saw no difference in reverence between those who chose to receive the Host on the tongue or in the hand. Emphasising outward signs of devotion is the first step toward repeating the mistakes of the Pharisees.

    Posted By: BrianC

59. Communion in the hand was born out of disobedience that came out of Europe through the dutch Bishops.
    
    It has been the constant tradition of our Catholic Church to administer communion on the tongue. It is most certainly more sacred and makes people aware that they are receiving something far superior than anything else.
    
    When Christ gave the apostles communion, he was giving them His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to the first Bishops, not lay people.
    
    Christ founded a Church built on authority-his authority and whatever it binds on earth will be bound in Heaven.
    
    The cardinal obviously sees and has been hearing about so many abuses coming from around the world that I am sure he will be rectifying things in the future.
    
    So instead of bagging him, we should be more concerned about the best way to receive Our Good Lord.
    
    Dear Fathers, how many of you preach publicly on the altars that receiving the Eucharist in mortal Sin is a sacrilege? Let's be honest, we are constantly invited to come up and recieve Jesus, but bever do we hear about confession! Too many inconsistencies.
    
    God Bless You all.

    Posted By: Tony

60. TJLawson, it being Christmas, I am in no particular mood to have an argument. I hope that the new year may bring you a release from the temptation to troll.

    Posted By: Adeodatus

61. To people like Tony who say things like "It [receiving the eucharist on the tongue] is most certainly more sacred and makes people aware that they are receiving something far superior than anything else" I have to ask "why?" What is so special about the tongue? It can be used for sin, it can be dirty like the hands and it's also a more difficult a process to give someone communion on the tongue.
    
    On top of that, you mention the last supper where Jesus did not place the bread directly on his Apostle's tongues, did he?

    Posted By: Alex Knight

62. It's those Dutch. They began the rebellion with Communion in the hand just as they began selling women in shop windows like commodities and just like they permit the use of smoking marijuana and hash cookies.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

63. Catholics having a view on the bombing of Gaza? No
    Catholics' perspective on financial crisis? No
    Catholics and opportunity for change with the inauguration of Obama? No
    Catholics and "Make Poverty History? No
    Catholics and women's rights? No
    
    No... the most discussed topic is on how to receive communion. We Catholics are a very profound lot...

    Posted By: Andreas

64. Andreas,
    
    Perhaps if you remembered that we are actually discussing how best to receive God in physical form, you wouldn't be so sarcastic but realise that it is far more important than any of the other subjects you mentioned.
    
    We Catholics are indeed a profound lot!

    Posted By: soothsayer

65. The way we receive communion denotes our relationship with God, which is always ongoing. For some of us we see it as meeting our God as adult Christians, being with our God and ready to take Jesus Christ with us and be Christ to others in our community and the world. The diversity of our Church in our liturgical practice allows us to worship our God in a way that expresses our relationship with God. Let us hope that our magisterium allows our relationship with God to continue to grow as we meet each other in worship, thankgiving and prayer.
    Diane H.

    Posted By: Diane Haddad

66. It is interesting that the topics that Andreas mentions aren't talked about nearly as much as is the reception of Holy Communion. Thank God that one of the most sacred moments in the life of every Catholic is still the most important. Dear Andreas, you are very right - we are a very profound group. I am glad, in some way, that this topic yields such a response. A testament to faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.

    Posted By: Dr. Brancik

67. Andreas, maybe if there was a news article about those things then maybe we would comment on them.
    
    However you would probably find that we would all share a similar view on those things (except maybe Obama's election - but there have already been numerous topics about that) and thus discussion -fuelled by debate- would probably die very quickly.

    Posted By: Alex Knight

68. Well said Andreas, I agree.
    
    Many of us Catholics love "counting the grains of sand" - it justifies us from carrying out the more difficult tasks we were commanded to do.
    
    And as has been said before, at the Lord's Supper , Jesus handed out the bread; I can find no reference to placing on the tongue. Some human has changed that along the way!

    Posted By: Chris

69. Communion on the tongue....YUK! How unhygienic! What does a priest do when his fingers accidentally touch the tongue of the person receiving in such a childish way (like a little child!!!)? And don't say it can't/doesn't happen. Does he go and wash his hands (as one priest I've heard of does)before giving the host to the next person? The tongue-sticker-outers might be happy with another person's saliva but I'm not and I will never receive in such a childish way. I SAY IT'S RUDE TO STICK YOUR TONGUE OUT TO THE LORD!
    
    I suspect the cardinal's preferences are more to do with superstition.
    
    Why should not the baptised priestly people of God receive the host in their sacred hands as do the ordained priestly people? After all, the Apostles and other disciples were not priests as we understand the word.
    
    I suspect the Church needs a new reformation.....focussing on the bishop of Rome and the cardinals.
    
    

    Posted By: Francis

70. (Chris) “I always was taught and understood that the Eucharist was celebration of the last Supper. I cannot recall any Gospel verse that suggested Jesus placed the bread on the Apostles' tongues on that occasion !”
    See John 13:26. Our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did He place this wet morsel into Judas's hand? That would be rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as "Friend" the traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practised in Jesus' time and which is still the case today: one feeds one's guests with one's own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. Typically a piece of unleavened bread dipped in wine, hommous or similar.
    Christ was following the ritual of the Passover which called for unleavened bread to be eaten with haroset (similar to stewed horseradish).
    
    Note also, when Ezekiel received the Word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than we receive the Word-made-Flesh:
    And [the Lord] said to me: . . . "But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; OPEN YOUR MOUTH, AND EAT WHAT I GIVE YOU." And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it . . . And He said to me, "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that scroll. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it." Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ezekiel 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3).
    
    Or the psalm used in the Office of Corpus Christi:
    "I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it.”.
    
    (Chris) “ at the Lord's Supper , Jesus handed out the bread”
    What evidence do you have for this assertion? That Our Lord said "TAKE and eat"? But these words were addressed to the Apostles alone and not to all Christians indiscriminately. And even if they had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standard way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful "took" and ate. But this practice is strictly forbidden.
    
    And with rare exceptions such as noted by St Cyril, Communion on the tongue was the received tradition throughout Christianity for 1500 years until the protestants introduced Communion in the hand at the Reformation, precisely because they denied the Real Presence. It seems far more likely that it was communion on the tongue which was the Apostolic Tradition, and that as you said, “Some human has changed that along the way!”
    
    (Francis) “Why should not the baptised priestly people of God receive the host in their sacred hands as do the ordained priestly people?”
    Actually the rules are exactly the same for a non-concelebrating priest (even a bishop or pope) as for a layman: he may only receive on the tongue unless an indult has been granted to the local bishop to permit communion in the hand, and provided that the local bishop or celebrating priest has not disallowed it.
    
    F: “the Apostles and other disciples were not priests as we understand the word.”
    Where do you get that idea? The Twelve (whom Scripture tells us were the only ones present with Christ at the Last Supper) were not laymen but bishops, and not just ordinary bishops but Apostles. If the apostles were not priests, where did Christian priesthood come from?
    
    F: “receiving in such a childish way (like a little child!!!)?”
    But that is exactly how Our Lord TOLD us to receive Him!
    
    F: “I suspect the cardinal's preferences are more to do with superstition.”
    What on earth does this mean? Superstition about what?
    
    You and many others here seem to think that the Cardinal is “going back” to some previous position of the Church, or changing something. In fact he is merely re-stating the CURRENT position of the Church, that Communion on the tongue is the preferred norm, and that communion in the hand may be allowed in some places provided certain additional criteria and precautions are complied with.
    
    e.g. The following response appeared in the April 1999 issue of Notitiae, the official publication of the Congregation for Divine Worship:
    
    “Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only in the hands are acting against the norms….. ministers should take care in a particular way that the host is consumed at once by Christ’s faithful, so that no one goes away with the eucharistic species in his hand.
    However, let all remember that the time-honoured tradition is to receive the host on the tongue. The celebrant priest, if there is a present danger of sacrilege, should not give the faithful communion in the hand, and he should make them aware of the reason for the way of proceeding.”
    
    To sum up, the Church has never ENCOURAGED Communion in the hand, only TOLERATED it within certain strict limits as an allowable but less-preferred option.
    
    If you are the same Francis, you implied in our long discussion on priestly celibacy that you belong to one of the Eastern Churches. Very few of which have ever permitted communion in the hand, and those that do have multiple additional requirements such as ritual handwashing. So it puzzles me that you are so adamant about promoting it and so vehement in condemning the traditional method.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

71. Ronk's reply is a somewhat pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.
    
    Following Ronk's reasoning in his reply to Chris, Communion should be given by dipping the host in the chalice and placing it on the recipient's tongue! A dreadful idea! Nowhere does it mention that Jesus dipped the morsel into wine! It's interestimg that the word for "dipped" is the word for "baptism". It does not necessarily imply that the morsel was submersed in the gravy but that a piece of it was. This could easily be passed to Judas who would have taken the morsel with his hand.In fact, in Mark and Matthew it mentions that Judas dipped his bread into the dish (Mk 14:20).
    
    Ronk completely ignores the issue of hygiene that I raised.
    
    Ronk's appeal to Ezekiel is the sign of desperation.
    
    Of course Jesus handed the bread to his disciples and they would have handed it on to the one next after having broken a piece off. Mark says that Jesus gave the bread and the cup to his disciples....there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Jesus placed the bread and the wine in their mouths.
    
    Fr Paul Stenhouse MSC in Annals Australia March 1986 traces giving communion on the tongue to Pope Agapitus (d536AD). During the first four centuries....the universal custom of the Church was to receive in the hand. St John Chrysostom (345-407) speaks of the importance of the faithful approaching Holy Communion with clean hands, because of the sacredness of what they are going to touch. (From Stenhouse) So much for Ronk and others claims that communion on the tongue was the Church's preferred way from the beginning. But of course Ronk has to blame those dreadful Protestants!
    
    The Twelve were not bishops nor priests, at least not in our sense of the words. Nowhere does SS mention an ordination for them Jesus does not use the word (h)iereus of his apostles. However, the designation of priests is first used of the Christian community (1Peter 2:5 etc).
    
    Our Lord did not teach us to receive him in a childish way but in a childlike way.....there is a difference!
    
    I reiterate....communion on the tongue smells more of superstition.
    
    No I do not belong to one of the Eastern Churches...
    
    I am not condemning the traditional method viz communion in the hand. You seem to be condemning the true traditional method.
    
    Note the photo of Card Ratzinger giving communion to the protestant Br Roger Schutz at John Paul IIs funeral Mass.
    

    Posted By: Francis

72. Francis, Why do you speak to me in the third person? Trust me, I am not such a proud august personage that I will take offence if you call me “you”. Or if you can’t bring yourself to that, maybe try “thou”! ;-)
    
    I see as before you seem to be disputing merely for love of disputation.
    I’m sure the great majority of Christians for the great majority of Christian history will be suitably chastised by your decree that their method of receiving Communion is “indefensible”, and that anyone who points out that they have used it is being “pathetic”.
    
    You seem to be totally ignorant that what you call “a dreadful idea!” (intinction) has in fact been used for centuries in many churches. In fact in some churches in Europe including in Rome it’s the ONLY option offered (of course it has to be taken on the tongue due to the aforementioned messiness.)
    
    ”Nowhere does it mention that Jesus dipped the morsel into wine!”
    I guess you missed my earlier reference where to find it in the Gospels.
    
    “It's interestimg that the word for "dipped" is the word for "baptism". It does not necessarily imply that the morsel was submersed in the gravy but that a piece of it was. …In fact, in Mark and Matthew it mentions that Judas dipped his bread into the dish.”
    Indeed, very interesting. But how does this constitute an argument AGAINST rather than FOR intinction/communion on tongue??
    
    “This could easily be passed to Judas who would have taken the morsel with his hand.”
    Sure it could. I never said it was impossible. Just messy. Hence unlikely. And even more unlikely because if He had done this Our Lord would have said, “These are My Body AND Blood. Take THEM and eat and drink them.” Rather than separate consecrations.
    
    “Ronk completely ignores the issue of hygiene that I raised.”
    You think handing around a piece of bread dipped in wine etc. is hygienic? Actually I did say earlier hygiene depends on good technique, but if you want a fuller explanation:
    For communion in mouth, the communicant needs to:
    - not stand too close or too far away from the priest/minister;
    - open mouth wide and extend tongue beyond lips, but not so far that it becomes round instead of flat (practise in front of a mirror if you are not used to it);
    - hold head up and STILL.
    Most CoT communicants have good technique in my experience.
    The priest/minister needs to:
    - have an altar server standing beside him holding the plate ready to hold under the chin of people wanting CoT;
    - be alert to see whether the communicant has his hands out or not;
    - Don’t rush, say “The Body of Christ” whilst holding the Host up and then WAIT for the communicant to say “Amen” (i.e. I believe it is the Body of Christ, and all that is taught by His Body the Church) – if you don’t you could be endangering his soul and risk profaning the Sacrament! And then WAIT for him to open his mouth. I have had some ministers try to shove the Host between my teeth the moment I opened my mouth to say “Amen”!
    - If communicant does not say “Amen”, or doesn’t keep his head still or open his mouth wide enough, just wait a second and he almost certainly will then do so.
    
    “Ronk's appeal to Ezekiel is the sign of desperation.”
    What’s wrong with Ezekiel? Is it not the inerrant Word of God?
    
    “Of course Jesus handed the bread to his disciples”
    Neither Scripture nor Tradition gives any support to this absolute statement. Just because you decree it doesn’t make it so.
    “and they would have handed it on to the one next after having broken a piece off.”
    There is absolutely no evidence of this. Our Lord did not say, “Take this and break off a piece then hand it on to the man beside you till it’s gone around the table”! What an imagination you have.
    “Mark says that Jesus gave the bread and the cup to his disciples....there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Jesus placed the bread and the wine in their mouths.” As I pointed out, there is plenty in Scripture and Tradition to suggest it. Yet another unfounded absolute statement.
    
    If it’s “desperation” to refer to the Bible to support one’s case, what do you call digging out a 23-year old magazine article? As in our “married priests” discussion when you repeatedly distorted and misquoted Holy Scripture itself, I can easily believe you have done the same to poor old Fr Stenhouse – as it’s not even online I can’t check for myself. But again as with the “married priests” issue, you illogically misuse the evidence that there was SOME ancient usage of the practice, to falsely claim that it was “UNIVERSAL”. In fact neither the “tongue-onlyists” nor the “hand-onlyists” like yourself can support their claims that their personal preferred practice was universal in the Early Church.
    
    But it is an irrefutable historical fact that CoT was not only preferred, but universal or all but (indeed attracting harsh penalties for CiH) from at least the 6th century, so the protestants were at the very least breaking a millennium-old tradition. And it is an indisputable historical fact that they did so in deliberate linkage with their denial of the Real Presence. Whether this makes them “dreadful” is not for me to judge.
    
    “The Twelve were not bishops nor priests, at least not in our sense of the words.”
    Having repeating this bizarre allegation, perhaps you will now answer the question you ignored on the other thread: As the Church received the Sacraments from Christ, and as all the other Sacraments (except baptism) necessarily depend on the sacrament of Holy Orders, just when in the post-apostolic times did Christ come back to earth (breaking his solemn promise that He would return only once, on the Last Day) and ordain one or more bishops? Why are bishops frequently mentioned in the New Testament written when nearly all the Apostles were still alive – did Christ somehow give Holy Orders to the Apostles’ immediate successors and protégés, whilst refusing it to the Apostles? Of course they were more than MERELY bishops, they were Apostles. But an apostle is also a bishop just as a bishop is also a priest and a priest is also a deacon.
    Yes the NT avoided using the word “priest” for apologetic reasons. To Jews, a priest who was not a descendant of Aaron, or even a Levite, was by definition a fraud. When the Church became mainly Gentile (very soon after the NT was written) this shyness about calling priests “priests” was no longer necessary.
    
    “Nowhere does SS mention an ordination for them”
    Please explain what Our Lord meant by breathing on them and saying “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain they are retained.”?
    
    “I reiterate....communion on the tongue smells more of superstition.”
    I reiterate – please explain this baffling statement?
    
    “No I do not belong to one of the Eastern Churches...”
    Then please explain your repeated pejorative references to “YOUR church”, “RC’ism” etc. And why should we have to play 20 questions to find out your religious affiliation. To be honest, your statements sound more like those of a protestant. If you are in fact a Catholic, I suggest you badly need to read the Catechism.
    
    And unless Br Roger was cross-dressing as a nun, you are mistaken about the photo. And it appears to be on the tongue, so you are doubly mistaken.
    
    “You seem to be condemning the true traditional method.”
    I have no barrow to push either way. Both methods are acceptable in my diocese and parish, and to me. Sometimes I receive CiH, sometimes CoT. You may love endless disputation and repetition, but having refuted the ancient-universalist claims of the extremists of both sides, and pointed out the facts of current and historical practice, my work here is done.
    
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

73. Ronk, whose is the love of disputation?
    
    Let's get some facts straight.....I did not state that those who prefer Communion on the tongue are being pathetic. I said that your reply was somewhat pathetic. I'm sure you'll agree they are two different propositions.
    
    It is indefensible arguing that Communion on the tongue is/was the traditional method from, or almost from the beginning. A number of the saints speak of receiving communion in the hand, arranging the hands in the form of a cross in order to receive the host. Re Intinction.....I believe that in many places it is banned. In any case, the recipient, having received the host in their hand dips it in the cup and so receives. I have so received in this manner myself.
    
    You stated that our Lord dipped a morsel of bread in some wine....John 13:26 does not say that.....John says nothing about Jesus dipping the morsel "in wine"; it just simply says that he dipped the morsel (in gravy?)
    
    Re the matter of hygiene......Ronk you might be happy receiving someone else's saliva, but I'm not. Nor does it take into account the priest's eyesight. Accidents do happen and I know of priests' fingers touching the communicant's tongue.
    
    Re Ezekiel......he was saying absolutely nothing about receiving Holy Communion! Ezekiel refers to receiving the prophetic word from YHWH. A better illustration is the feeding the 5,000 in the gospels w ....did the thousands receive the bread and fish with their hands or did Jesus place them on their tongues. NB...the Eucharistic implications of the sign, particularly in John 6.
    
    Re Jesus handing the bread to the apostles......there is absolutely no evidence that he got up and went round to each one placing the bread on their tongues! Where do you get that idea from? Our Lord did not say: "Stick your tongues out but don't stand too close or too far away and extend your tongue beyond your lip[s but not so far that it becomes round instead of flat".
    
    So a 23 year old article is invalid!?? Try the early saints of the first centuries for communion in the hand being the right and proper way to receive the Sacrament.......they're much older. Of course, being so far back in time we must ignore them according to Ronk's logic.
    
    Ronk.....you're getting desperate again....accusing me of falsifying and distorting Fr Stenhouse's article.....check for yourself. If you feel the urge to slander or defame please go and take a Bex and have a good lie down before you do. It just makes you look even more foolish.
    
    Now Ronk says that CiT was "universal for all but" only from the 6th century.......I'm more interested in the first 5 centuries. Ronk now links the Ordination of the Apostles as bishops (and nowhere does the NT refer to them as bishops) by claiming that when Jesus breathed on the disciples (more present than the 10 Apostles) he was ordaining them. What if women were present? Thomas wasn't there so he wasn't ordained. In fact, ordination requires the laying on of hands not breathing upon. Did Jesus perform an invalid ordination?
    
    Poor Br Roger Schutz.....Ronk, you now impugn the integrity of Br Roger. Have you seen the photo? I have....it's available on the internet......Cardinal Ratzinger gives Cummunion in the hand to a Protestant (and, no, Br Roger was not cross-ddressing as a nun......what a stupid thing to even postulate) It is very clear that Ratzinger gave Communion on the hand!! It doesn't just appear that he did. It appears that Ronk doesn't know whether he's Arthur or Martha.

    Posted By: Francis

74. “Re Intinction.....I believe that in many places it is banned.”
    You are mistaken. It is permitted anywhere throughout the Universal Church.
    
    “In any case, the recipient, having received the host in their hand dips it in the cup and so receives. I have so received in this manner myself.”
    I suspect you are just trying to “wind me up” here, but this is most definitely forbidden everywhere and always has been. (Though sadly I wouldn’t be all that surprised if some disobedient/ignorant/lax EMHC had let you get away with it.) Communion is administered TO you, it’s not self-service! Only a priest may intinct, and only a celebrating priest may administer communion to himself. And you talk about hygiene! The chalice minister wipes the rim of the cup where the communicant’s lips have been. But he can’t wipe the germs which you have transferred from your hands (which carry far more germs than the lips) into the Precious Blood (which others then have to drink) when you pretended to be a priest. Not to mention the danger of spilling drops of the Precious Blood from the Host dripping in your hand. Not only “Yuk” but illicit and a profanation.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

75. Oh Ronk.....such a small world of rubrics that pharisees inhabit. Re Intinction as I descibed.....did Jesus forbid it? I insist on dipping the host myself. that is my right as a member of the priestly people of God. You state that only a priest may intinct....what of a "lay" Communion minister? Are they forbiddeen to intinct according to your understanding?Re hygiene from receiving from the common cup.....read the scientfic evidence available.....it is quite hygienic. Plus, no one is compelled to receive from the cup. Jesus gave the cup this way so why should not we? As long as the cup is wiped etc it is far less a threat than receiving the previous person's saliva off the minister's fingers.

    Posted By: Francis

76. A lay minister, or even a deacon, may not intinct. Read the Missal and its General Instruction if you don’t believe me.
    
    And please explain how exactly you expect the minister of the chalice to “wipe” away the germs that are floating throughout the Precious Blood after you have illicitly “dipped” a Host in it after holding it in your germ-laden hands. You are in effect insisting that everyone approaching the cup after you, drink the germs from your hands.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

77. During the 'Last Supper' did Jesus give a piece of bread direct to each of the disciple's mouth and same with the cup of wine? Or, was it a community sharing of Jesus' meal where the bread and wine were passed around the disciples sitting round the table covered in an atmosphere of holiness, reverence and mystery.

    Posted By: Eulalio Diaz, Sydney Australia

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. A merry and meaningful Christmas from CathNews

   CathNews wish all our readers a Happy and Holy Christmas and a Peaceful and Prosperous New Year. We will be having a short break following our edition on Friday December 19 and will commence our daily publication on Monday January 5, 2009.

2. Non-profit sector comes together

   Australia's non-profit sector will hold a "historic" meeting at Parliament House in Canberra today to discuss mechanisms for effective national representation of the nation's 700,000 non profit organisations.

3. Mater Hospital land sold dollar for dollar

   Brisbane's Mater Health Services has sold, for one dollar, a 1.8 hectare block of land to the state government for the new Queensland Children's Hospital with an option to buy back the land in 90 years, also for a dollar.

4. Von Griffins in Sound of Music revival

   Sydney's Hills district has been alive with the sounds of the "Von Griffin" family preparing a Sound of Music revival with a 150 strong team including 100 former World Youth Day volunteers.

5. Themes for next three WYDs

   Pope Benedict XVI has announced the themes for the next three World Youth Days in order to help young Catholics better prepare for the next international gathering in Madrid in 2011.