Author Topic: Communion in Hand  (Read 1298 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EcceAgnusDei

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Reputation: +10/-0
Communion in Hand
« on: March 18, 2010, 12:09:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've been trying to argue against Communion in the hand on the grounds that it is disrespectful. Does anyone know the best way to defend this?

    Here is what one person said to me: why is it any less an affront to Christ to subject him to our saliva and digestive processes than our hands?

    Any answers?

    Another one I usually get is that the apostles received in hand so why shouldn't they. I answer that the apostles should be held at the level of a priest or bishop, not a lay person. But this leads back to touching the Host in the first place and someone said that the apostles were sinful and their hands were no more worthy to touch the Eucharist than ours are.

    Thanks and God bless!


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #1 on: March 18, 2010, 12:38:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    why is it any less an affront to Christ to subject him to our saliva and digestive processes than our hands?


    Aside from the proper signification of the priest feeding the flock and the actual consecration of the priests hands, one could easily turn the table and reduce their indifference to the absurd.  When they object, ask them why it matters at all?  Then start picking away at their answers.  There must be some sign of reverence present.  Then look to tradition and explain that it is not arbitrary.  Ask them to think about the reasons why as opposed to acting like a flippant teenager with regard to the holiest Thing on earth.  Explain to them the traditional distinction between profane and sacred, a notion that has been utterly destroyed in the novus ordo.  

    You could also mention that there is no parity between what is of choice externally and what happens of necessity with regard to actual eating.  Consequently, there is no sin where the force of necessity is present; it ceases to be a human act properly speaking.  

    Additionally, in the old rite of baptism, the mouth is in fact consecrated to eat the Bread of Life as well.    


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #2 on: March 18, 2010, 02:56:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cardinal Ratzinger from his book God Is Not With Me --

    Quote

    "It would be incorrect to assume that subjecting Our Lord to the digestive acids of the stomach is an act of irreverence, one that renders Holy Communion an occasion of sacrilege.  Though gross mastication is involved, and often tongues have a greasy film on them, the Eucharist can bear great spiritual fruit and is not always to be seen as unapproachable or forbidden."


    I made that up, of course, but I think it's a pretty good imitation of one of Ratzinger's twisted strategies.  This is where he takes an absurd and inane straw man argument that no one except him has ever thought of or said before, which he attacks in order to sound conservative ( "It is not something the Catholic Church can accept to say that dogs should be made priests..." )  Then he spins out his rebuttal into a false, frustratingly nonsensical or just plain heretical conclusion that is almost as bad as the original straw man ( "... which is why the act of ordaining women cannot be seen as negative in the light of this dangerous proposition..." )  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #3 on: March 18, 2010, 07:57:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A very common misconception is that the Catholic public worship gradually got more and more formalized and ritualistic over time. This notion is completely false. The Israelites had a very formal religion, and their public worship was full of symbolic rituals, etc much like the Holy Mass.

    The Apostles received Holy Communion on the tongue I think. Before Vatican II and the Protestant Reformation all Christians, Catholic or schismatic (I guess that these aren't true Christians), received Holy Communion on the tongue only.

    Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.



    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-8
    • Gender: Female
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #4 on: March 18, 2010, 09:50:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Vladimir


    Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.


    That's just about all that needs to be said.


    Offline EcceAgnusDei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #5 on: March 18, 2010, 10:15:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Cardinal Ratzinger from his book God Is Not With Me --

    Quote

    "It would be incorrect to assume that subjecting Our Lord to the digestive acids of the stomach is an act of irreverence, one that renders Holy Communion an occasion of sacrilege.  Though gross mastication is involved, and often tongues have a greasy film on them, the Eucharist can bear great spiritual fruit and is not always to be seen as unapproachable or forbidden."


    I made that up, of course, but I think it's a pretty good imitation of one of Ratzinger's twisted strategies.  This is where he takes an absurd and inane straw man argument that no one except him has ever thought of or said before, which he attacks in order to sound conservative ( "It is not something the Catholic Church can accept to say that dogs should be made priests..." )  Then he spins out his rebuttal into a false, frustratingly nonsensical or just plain heretical conclusion that is almost as bad as the original straw man ( "... which is why the act of ordaining women cannot be seen as negative in the light of this dangerous proposition..." )  


    Having just watched the MHFM's video of Benedict XVI's heresies, that really made me laugh!

    Offline EcceAgnusDei

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #6 on: March 18, 2010, 10:18:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Elizabeth
    Quote from: Vladimir


    Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.


    That's just about all that needs to be said.


    I wish that's all they needed to hear. UGH I really, really dislike liberal, modernist, NO Catholics.

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2674
    • Reputation: +477/-116
    • Gender: Female
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #7 on: March 18, 2010, 11:42:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ecce

    So do I, now more than ever.  Now I know what Our Lord meant about throwing your pearls before swine.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 19049
    • Reputation: +10499/-5025
    • Gender: Male
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #8 on: March 18, 2010, 12:22:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Vladimir
    A very common misconception is that the Catholic public worship gradually got more and more formalized and ritualistic over time. This notion is completely false. The Israelites had a very formal religion, and their public worship was full of symbolic rituals, etc much like the Holy Mass.

    The Apostles received Holy Communion on the tongue I think. Before Vatican II and the Protestant Reformation all Christians, Catholic or schismatic (I guess that these aren't true Christians), received Holy Communion on the tongue only.

    Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.


    I'm glad that someone else realized this as well.  Modernists / antiquarians would have us believe that the original liturgies were just a bunch of proto-hippies sitting around a circle holding hands and singing kumbaya, that the first Eucharistic prayers were just adlibed by the minister, etc.  But the Jewish mentality was VERY contrary to that; Jews were incredibly formal and ritualistic.  Cf. the book How Christ Said the First Mass

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #9 on: March 18, 2010, 12:33:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My mother is taking part in the so-called "Christ renews His parish" program at the local novus ordo.  She showed me the text that accompanies the program and it was the grossest example of modernism in action that I've ever seen.  In the beginning of the book, the author launched into insult and ridicule of the Church's traditional liturgy while concluding that we have moved beyond all that nonsense and thanks to the new modern discovery of the notion of "celebration."  It was the creepiest most sickening thing I've ever read.  I told my mom that it shouldn't be called "Christ renews His parish" but rather "Satan renews his parish."  I told her that no catholic could ever say that because it amounts to digusting heresy and the book was infested with modernism elsewhere as well.  I don't know what's going to shake her from going there, she just keeps attending because it is legally considered a catholic parish I suppose.      

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #10 on: March 19, 2010, 09:55:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ah yes, the equal holiness of body parts argument. This is what we've come to as Catholics. I've come upon it myself.

    Apparently the Catholic Church was deluded by Satan for banning Communion in the hand at least for 1500? years and probably more.

    By this logic it would be just as holy to receive with our feet. One can even imagine more insane examples following some of Christopher West's statements to their logical conclusion.

    These people have lost all sense of humility due to being told repeatedly by the NO Church that they are all swell gals and guys and are a-ok and Christ is their bud. It is hubris disguised as feel good Christianity.

    These types would have asked St. Peter why he was choosing to be crucified upside down? They would have seen his humility as ridiculous pride just as they look down upon veiled women in the NO or those who recieve kneeling.

    The root of their problem goes far deeper than communion in the hand. Their religion teaches them liberty ( how dare you tell me how to receive), equality ( we're just as good as the priest, all body parts are of equal reverence), and fraternity (Jesus is my bud, He doesn't mind how I receive Him)

    The arguments you are experiencing are all smoke screen. The root of their problem is PRIDE. Communion in the hand = Jesus and I are on the same level.


    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Communion in Hand
    « Reply #11 on: April 03, 2010, 10:50:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Ah yes, the equal holiness of body parts argument. This is what we've come to as Catholics. I've come upon it myself.

    Apparently the Catholic Church was deluded by Satan for banning Communion in the hand at least for 1500? years and probably more.

    By this logic it would be just as holy to receive with our feet. One can even imagine more insane examples following some of Christopher West's statements to their logical conclusion.

    These people have lost all sense of humility due to being told repeatedly by the NO Church that they are all swell gals and guys and are a-ok and Christ is their bud. It is hubris disguised as feel good Christianity.

    These types would have asked St. Peter why he was choosing to be crucified upside down? They would have seen his humility as ridiculous pride just as they look down upon veiled women in the NO or those who recieve kneeling.

    The root of their problem goes far deeper than communion in the hand. Their religion teaches them liberty ( how dare you tell me how to receive), equality ( we're just as good as the priest, all body parts are of equal reverence), and fraternity (Jesus is my bud, He doesn't mind how I receive Him)

    The arguments you are experiencing are all smoke screen. The root of their problem is PRIDE. Communion in the hand = Jesus and I are on the same level.


    Yup, another solid post by you sir.

    Moral relativism was the one thing that brought me into the Church and into understanding Catholic theology, morality, and natural law.

    Moral relativism is one of the sharpest arrows in satan's quiver. But I always remember Ephesians 6 guidelines when battling MR in the world and in people I come across.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16