@@angelicdoctor8016 keep in mind that the early Church was living in persecution. The practice of Communion on the tongue with altar rails and pattens was developed over time to increase reverence and remove the risk of desecration for our Lord. I wrote a more extensive comment a little earlier, it discusses another defense for communion on the tongue. I do encourage reading the whole thing.
I am Malaysian catholic. Personally, I believe receive the Eucharist by tongue and on knee is act of our of humility. Among other attributes, Our Lord is All Pure and Holy and He deserves our deepest respect, worship, adoration, praise, thanksgiving and honor. Ingratitude hurts our Lord.
I am from Poland and we were always receiving Eucharist on the knee and on the tongue ,by consecrated hand of the priest .First in my life I saw Americans to receive Holly Communion on the hand and in my opinion it is degradation of the church and disrespectful to our Lord Jesus Christ.Now pandemic is used to force all people on the earth to follow this terrible custom 🥲by free masons order!
Respectfully, I feel a difference in the Eucharist at the TLM. Kneeling and on the tongue is a fitting way to receive our Lord. I've seen the priests at the TLM, deliver the Eucharist efficiently with everyone kneeling at the Communion rail. The TLM attendance has tripled over lockdown, by the grace of God.
Totley not agreed with receiving Eucharist on the hand. No explanation. And early Church before when gave on the hand people put some cloth and they took Eucharist with the tongue.
I live in Arizona too but in Sierra Vista- only one large parish here and a much smaller one both with Norvus Ordo Masses. But our three priests are very respectful and honor that Lord at our Masses. Our parish has confession 7 days a week twice a day and an Adoration chapel open 24/7 It really is a great parish
What about this: I was told by a canonical lawyer and priest that neither a priest nor a Bishop can deny their people the right that Holy Mother Church has granted us, which is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. He stated this during the pandemic. In his parish we are able to receive on the hand and on the tongue and, I'll say, the majority of communicants receive on the tongue. Praise God for this parish!
It would be good to have a resource pool, to have documents to take to the Bishops who disallow their people communion, or disallow following conscience.
@Nereida Luna you are lucky! I mentioned (very respectfully) to a priest at a parish I go to that “Our Orthodox brethren still receive our Lord by the common spoon, why are Catholics not able to receive on the tongue?” His response was “well, may be you should just go and join them”!!!! That’s the Novus Ordo for you!
When our priest allowed kneelers for receiving Holy Communion this last month, I went back to my seat and sobbed because it made me realize exactly who I was receiving. The body and blood of Our Lord Jesus! Of course we should kneel and receive on the tongue.
Jorge Bergoglio said that Vat II is the Magesterium, but Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility, thus the TLM is the proper mass, per the infallibility the Council of Trent possesses. Based upon this, if VII is the current Magesterium, then it does not possess infallibility. Since the Magesterium has, at least up until Vat II possessed infallibility, then Vatican II would be a false Magesterium. Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic. [The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself, statements from the popes on the status of the council show it was not the intent to make new dogma, dogma cannot be created accidentaly, and claiming a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic because it was titled as such is just a positivist argument.] [H/t Christopher Marlowe.] 7th Session of the Council of Trent, changing the rites: Canon 13. "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." Ergo, Vat II is pastoral. Ergo Sum, given the following Lumen Gentium of Vat II, we are to follow the Council of Trent: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” The Magesterium and fallibility do not exist together simultaneously, but the Magesterium and infallibility do exist together simultaneously, thus the Council of Trent and the Magesterium exist together simultaneously.
Thank you so much for taking time to send me your response. You are very learned. I wish more people would read and study our Catholic religion and history.
Since beginning to explore the church about August of last year, I've had to receive blessings each Mass before finally, 4/3, being baptized. I was fine until receiving first communion.. as soon as my Lord hit my tongue, I literally shot back to my face, buried my face in my hands and sobbed. So, so long to wait to receive Him. The cradle Catholics and those lukewarm need to recall how precious this gift is to us. His sacrifice to bring us home due to OUR sin. God bless Freedom..
@@museluvr That is beautiful! If only other Catholics would understand and believe who they are receiving! Thank you for your response! God bless you!🙏🏻❤️
My personal opinion is that my hands are not consecrated, so I can not touch the Body of our Lord. I prefer to receive kneeling down and on the tongue.
@@paulasmith2426 Nuns are not allowed to do what you say, secondly doing so in ignorance on their part is material heresy, not full bore heresy, as decided for centuries by the church, and God has winked at sin before but once one knows better... And one can be young and sincere and still go against hundreds of years of established church teaching. The moment you entertain doing that you become a protestant. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth". St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors. Francis is promoting things contrary to popes, councils, etc. He promotes invincible ignorance when the Apostles, Apostlic Fathers, ECF's and past them didn't, Jesus Christ said one must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, St. Paul wrote that God commands all men everywhere to repent, wrote that there is no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved, etc. And the modernists should be ashamed at pretending they want to go back because it was the early church and using that as a shield because they and others aren't saying anything about how to stop sacrilege, which church history shows why receiving in the hand was stopped.
@@paulasmith2426 As another person here, A Retrograde, said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostles. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO. 2 synods, one council, one ecumenical council, at least one pope, most likely more, the Council of Trent, and hundreds of years of Apostoluc Tradition overrides Francis and Vatican II.
Your tongue is not consecrated either. There is a first taste of salt with a prayer that the child is "no longer to hunger for want of heavenly food,..." It has naught to do with consecrating the mouth so as to receive the Holy Eucharist. See the Latin Tridentine Baptismal Rite (Part 1; section on The Imposition of Salt). Again, I ask, if your hands cannot receive the Host because they are not consecrated, how can your mouth? The command of the Lord for BOTH species was "TAKE, eat..." and "TAKE, drink..." The entire "up-ing the sacredness to prevent abuse still runs against Christ's command for His people to "Take. Eat....Take. Drink." Additionally, one might note that Christ's COMMAND to His communicants begins with the key word, "take," which indicates the taking is neither the eating, nor the drinking. It is the handling which preceded the eating or drinking. Again, Christ was not handing them Communion wafers, but passing the flat bread. The "sop" which was dipped in by Jesus and Judas would have been the charoset (a paste, or relish mixture of figs, nuts, spices, wine, and honey). They weren't dipping their bread in the cup of wine Jesus consecrated. The disciples also would not have been kneeling (and certainly not at an alter rail) when they received the bread and cup from the Lord. The Church has created many practices and rules to make a point regarding the sacredness of the body and blood of Christ. But those practices making theological points are not the matter itself. Jesus did not walk around saying, "Don't touch me! I am consecrated to God! In fact, I am God! So, look. But don't touch! Stand back, all you unconsecrated sinners!" Nor did he say to his disciples, "Hands off the bread I blessed! I washed your feet, not your hands!" Nor did He personally distribute the elements to each of them. Again, we should note that the bread had to be BROKEN (22:19). We see the same with the wine. It is passed, not personally handed to each of them (Mt. 26:27). Also, the Church requires fasting an hour before taking Communion. But that is an innovation. For in Mk. 14:18 we see the disciples were RECLINING and eating. In fact, Jesus gave Communion WHILE they were eating! (Mk. 14:22). You see, the Church has created many rules/laws to emphasize the sacredness, the respect, the honor one is to have when taking Communion. But those rules are not inherent to, or necessary for Communion. They reclined at table. Today we sit at tables when eating. But I don't hear any clamoring for reclining during Communion. They passed the bread taring pieces off (at least in those days), today we have a priest distributing. Still, where is the distribution of the sacred wine?
@@malcolmkirk3343 When one attends confession before mass the tongue is consecrated as one has been absolved of all sins. Secondly, that and receiving the Eucharist, doubly consecrates the tongue.
@@paulasmith2426 The Apostle Paul wrote that God once winked at sin but now commands all men to repent. His writings and the rest of the NT show this is for Jews, Gentiles, in accordance with Jesus Christ' teaching to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to *every creature*". This overrides Pope Francis who said the following: A.) "It is not licit to convince them of your faith. Prosyletism is the strongest venom against the ecumenical path". Francis speaking to a group of Lutherans, Paul VI hall 10/13/2016 "We should never prosyletize the Orthodox." C.) Francis has repeatedly said that non-Catholics, schismatics, protestants, etc, all have martyrs, which contradicts Pope Eugene IV AND the Council of Florence, and the centuries and centuries of precedentand church tradition they built upon then at this council, all of which overrides Francis as they have precedence before him and he is subject to councils before him: Nicean, Florence, Trent, doesn't matter, he is subject to them.
Have not taken the Holy Eucharist for about 25yrs due to not being worthy and doubts about my faith. Now that I repented and acknowledge the true and ever living God, the Father Almighty, my tears overflows as I take the Holy Eucharist with my tongue for I do not feel at ease of holding Him with my unclean hands. Praising and thanking Him as I kneel in the pew😭. I have yet gotten used to receiving Him, probably till then the tears won’t stop. May God bless us all!🙏🏼
All it takes to be worthy to receive our Lord is to make a good confession, be a baptized Catholic an be in a state of grace. No one is worthy, and our feeling worthy is not necessary. Praise God that you are reconnecting with this great gift of Jesus in the Eucharist.
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth". St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
Jorge Bergoglio said that Vat II is the Magesterium, but Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility, thus tlhe TLM is the proper mass due to the Council of Trent possessing infallibility. Based upon this, if VII is the current Magesterium, then it does not possess infallibility. Since the Magesterium has, at least up until Vat II possessed infallibility, then Vatican II would be a false Magesterium. Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic. [The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself, statements from the popes on the status of the council show it was not the intent to make new dogma, dogma cannot be created accidentaly, and claiming a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic because it was titled as such is just a positivist argument.] [H/t Christopher Marlowe.] 7th Session of the Council of Trent, changing the rites: Canon 13. "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." Ergo, Vat II is pastoral. Ergo Sum, given the following Lumen Gentium of Vat II, we are to follow the Council of Trent: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” The Magesterium and fallibility do not exist together simultaneously, but the Magesterium and infallibility do exist together simultaneously, thus the Council of Trent and the Magesterium exist together simultaneously.
@Jason This isn't my assumption, as, again, the following say this: Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility. Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic. [The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself.
Amen!!! 👑+✝️+🔥=❤ As much as I adore Fr. Mark's Holy Spirit-filled insight, what he "missed" here, however, is to ask - WHO do we trust?! God or man?! Obviously, many Clergy and laypeople are listening and obeying man. How can anyone think they could possibly get a virus "of any kind", by receiving on the tongue!! NO hand will EVER be clean enough .. and it leaves way too much room for abuse. So, only on the tongue and, yes, altar rails returned, so we are "dropped to our knees". When the church closed down, over the past 2 years, they said to everyone (and without a word) 'we don't really truly believe!' We should have had MORE Masses said, rather than none, thereby leaving our churches (where God is fully present) empty. It baffles my mind. Yet, as always, "follow the money". Govt paid Catholic. Churches and others to shut down. They obviously couldn't say no.
There are Catholic churches that have Communion on tongue. If that's what one desires as a Catholic more often than not they can find a church that does so.
about 2 months ago i felt a deep profound feeling that took over my body where i couldnt move at the moment of the consecration of the holy eucharist i began to cry uncontrollably i felt the holy spirit presence and when i walked to recieve it i fell to my knees and opened my mouth i sobbed uncontrollably and i am thankful the priest did not deny me the holy eucharist on the tongue when i got back to my seat i fell to my knees and cried sobbed till my face touched the floor at that moment i made a promise to the lord that i will never recieve him in my hands only by mouth and on my knees for he is truly present in the holy eucharist for the past year i had doubts of the sacrement of the holy eucharist and believing that jesus was present there but i truly wanted to believe and i thank the lord for opening my heart and eyes for i will never see it any other way but in true humbleness and in faith for the lord is present in the holy eucharist and i asked the lord forgiveness for all the days i was ignorant and lukewarm in faith. Lord have mercy in those taking this so lightly and not seeing the severity of the matter how much pain and suffering puts you lord seeing your children do nothing. 🙏🏼😢
Beautiful testimony. I more times then not get teary eyed as the Eucharist is prepared, and when brand new (under a year old Catholic, praise God) I would sob before truly understanding our Lord was there, with us all. With work, I sometimes have to leave when they begin Adoration, and I cry walking out to the car. If I could, I'd sit there for hours with Him, but know He is with me no matter where I am. Still... God bless you.
@@museluvr amen! where ever you are adore him. when the church was closed because of the pandemic i listen to mass at home and i felt the holy spirit in my home i sobbed un able to move just feeling peace at the moment of the consegration it was such a peaceful feeling and i felt the understanding of God knowing how much i wanted to be present in church but couldnt be there. God sees our hearts and true intentions in really wanted to have a connection with God. seek and you will find peace in the lord wherever you are. peace be with you and God bless you always 🙏🏼
A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
B.) Protestabt heretics like Martin Luther then and today deny adherence to all Popes and Councils past in 1-9 and think only the pope now matters. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francisband/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic abd like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1 through 9 above.
C.) Like books in a bookshelf, the first Popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope and not be an anti-pope It is modernism and prorestabt heretics like Luther who say deny all previous popes and councils, and popes that agreed with these councils in 1-9 above. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even up to the 1st one, St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition, thus a diminishing of the papacy which would make the Orthodox ascendant. But there is neither a diminishing or increasing of the papacy. But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension previoys Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition and the previous councils building upon councils before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back to Nicaea and ultimately to Sacred Scripture. Heretics and schismatics like Luther though say to deny all popes and councils in 1-9.
@@raymack8767 again, Ray - you make no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma --> disciplines change -- receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue
@@angelicdoctor8016 You constantly say along the lines "you don't know anything" yet never prove step by step, with expounded sound, cogent arguments, what you claim you know but don't as many here have cleaned your clock and you run away. You have said again and again to me "your move" so this is a game to you, sadly, so grow up, Sissy on one of these called you out saying you used inappropriate language and Ad Homs. You can't even figure out that Sacred Scripture and Tradition from 30 AD until now are what the councils and popes relied upon that I referenced and when they say only certain people may touch sacred vessels, you can be excommunicated over certain things, etc, etc, it is forever. These popes then who worked with these councils and what they all established over the millenia spoke for God and it is forever. 1-9 all link together. Trent, #9, anchored 1-9 in the New Testament citing "Apostolic Tradition" thus for you to challrnge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul in the NT. 1-9 are now irreversible.
@@lexodius When I read about the early Church Fathers and the Saints I read of people who are 100% trying to honor God with their heart, mind, soul and strength in everything they do. Today, we are too scared to approach the altar without a mask on. The world is crumbling around us because everyone has "their own truth", while the Catholic Church has The Truth - His Truth and is not reaching out to proclaim this and defend this (except for rare priests and lay people). The Church today should be gearing up and reaching out to the lost of the World who desperately need to know the Truth that comes from the Creator of Truth itself. That is the Church I am longing for and looking for.
I made Spiritual Communions, and then one day a priest and deacon told me, if I would wait till the end of the line, I could receive on the tongue. I am still doing that now. I read that to make a sacrifice out of love, for the Lord, was pleasing to the Lord. I longed for the Holy Eucharist and it seems that He was pleased, for His Providence granted me access to Him while kneeling and on the tongue, by a priest or deacon. Praise the Lord in His Abundant Love and God bless you all.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your unequivocal answer about receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. At my parish in Wisconsin, I saw one man consistently kneel to receive Holy Communion on his tongue. He would wait to be the last one in line. I told him I wished I had his courage to do the same thing. He simply replied, "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, my Best Friend. How else could I receive Him?" God keep you so bold to speak the Truth!!!
I go to a very reverent Novus Ordo that never stopped giving Communion kneeling on the tongue if that’s how the communicant present themselves. I’m grateful for this. They also have confession for 1 hour prior to every mass and a priest is in the confessional during mass up to the presentation of the gifts. It’s awesome.
sounds good, and yet have a look at section 160 of St. Faustina's diary, where Our Lord celebrates being held in the hand - the practice of the early Church
As another person here, A Retrograde said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostles. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO. To go against Trent makes one as heretical as Martin Luther.
@@raymack8767 obviously not -- Trent has no special status among ecumenical councils - the practice/norm of receiving in the hand did change, and is changed again today (to allow both practcices) -- no getting around the reality of the early Church practice of Eucharist in the hand -- look at how late your references are, to get a sense of what I mean
@@angelicdoctor8016 The Council of Trent said receiving on the tongue was bssed upon Apostolic Tradition. As has been said before: St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” So since Ecumenical Councils, multiple Doctors of the Church, multiple popes, and traditions going back to at least 115 AD. Too many popes, too much precedent, almost 2000 years of precedent, too many councils, too many synods, etc, etc, for ine council of Vatican II or one pope, Francis to override. And Pope Honorious' actions shows us one cannot do as one feels like doing. To do so on this now would gut the church. Apostolic Tradition, all those councils, popes, popes in concert with councils, synods, etc, all altogether must be obeyed. The weight of all the decisions, in concert, over millenia, sets all of this in stone so to say. It is therefore permanent and cannot be undone. Honorius I found out the hard way you cannot do whatever you feel like. All, even popes, must obey all of the collective body and decisions before them or they can just do whatever they like, which Pope Honorious I found out, although posthumously, is false. End of discussion. Obey all of then before you. They altogether override one Pope or one mere Vat 2 Council. They are in opposition to them before them as Vatican 2 itself basically said receiving in the hand was the exception to the rule not the rule itself but all before undoes Vat 2 anyway on this. Therefore they, since they precede, take precedence. Obey them. Muted.
@@angelicdoctor8016 Btw, one last thing. You cannot isolate Trent by itself. It, along with all before it, all together, with all the Popes, synods, councils, ecumenical councils, the Apostolic Tradition that Trent speaks of, etc, all together overrule, outweight, and overwhelm one mere council (Vat 2) and Pope Francis. So, would you obey Pope Honorius I if he told you to agree with him on monothelitism?
If you don't have the holy spirit by being supernaturally Born again from above it doesn't matter.....there is no one in Biblical times sitting around debating on received the communion ON THE TONGUE OR HAND . It is such a Ridiculous argument......JUST FOOLISH THIS IS WHY RCC IS FALSE DOCTRINE
@@TriciaRP read john 6 sister, and Jesus reffers to the bread and wine at the last supper as “my body” and the chalice of wine is reffered to as “the blood of my covenant” how can there be debate to this! Why would he not be speaking litterally, in john 6 many desiples left him and he did not claim that he was speaking metaphorically so they would stay. the Holy Eucharist being the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord is dogma. If someone gave you something and before they did you knew IT WAS JESUS would you not recieve it with the utmost care reverence respect submission and piety? People lose crumbs of the Holy Eucharist sometimes taking it in the hand, the church permits this but we as a church should lick the crumbs but my personal conviction is to recieve on the tounge or if nessicary to recieve in the hand and lick the crumbs. Also being “born again” the way reffered to now is not in line with the very early church and what the Holy Apostles taught, they taught that youre born again when you are baptised, the “born again that non Catholics and Orthodox refer to has only been around for around 100 years, very different then what was taught within 100 years of Our Lords incarnation. Something else that is missing from non Catholic and Orthodox Christians is confirmation, the apostles laid hands on newly baptised believers and said “recieve the Holy Spirit” is this not important? The problem with little to no tradition is that we stray off and accept our own understanding which often times is not in line with our Lords will for us, i left the Catholic church which i was born into and became an anabaptist, i was “born again” in the non Catholic/Orthodox sense i was anti-Catholic, i went to Eucharistic addoration i felt as if Jesus was looking down at me through the Eucharist illuminating my mistakes and inviting me to fix them my first thought was “oh no what have i done ive made a grave mistake” , i struggled with this for a week or so, my thought process for the entire week was, how can i recieve this how can i recieve, i didnt beleive in all the dogmas of the church. Maybe i can just accept all these dogmas blindly. But it dawned on me. If Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and showed me this it must be the real church as he would not show me this in a false church. God bless sister :) much love.
@@TriciaRP - You are TROLLING and you are completely clueless about Catholicism. The Holy Spirit is certainly not acting through you when you carry on this way. Catholics ARE born again when we confirm our faith as teenagers or adults. This completes the Catholic infant Baptism We are baptized in water and the Spirit and born again. Protestants like you who bombard Catholic channels with your ignorant, evil slanders of Catholics and Catholicism would be better off learning about the Catholic faith from valid, Catholic sources. But of course, it is easier for you to be obnoxious and to remain in error and hubris. You would also be better off picking up your cross and living out your faith by performing some Christian, charitable works instead of coming to our "home" and condemning us with your errors. You are NO authority on Catholicism. If you are born again, consider get reborn again. (Now be gone before someone drops a house on you!) I will include you on my rosary intentions today, for you to receive humility and other necessary graces. I welcome prayers, as well.
If I understood Fr Goring correctly, reverence and love as well as the disposition of the soul and heart is what is most important when receiving the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
I, too, adore Fr. Mark's Holy Spirit-filled insight. What he "missed" here, however, is to ask - WHO do we trust?! God or man?! Obviously, many Clergy and laypeople are listening and obeying man. How can anyone think they could possibly get a virus "of any kind", by receiving on the tongue!! NO hand will EVER be clean enough .. and it leaves way too much room for abuse. So, only on the tongue and, yes, altar rails returned, so we are "dropped to our knees". When the church closed down, over the past 2 years, they said to everyone (and without a word) 'we don't really truly believe!' We should have had MORE Masses said, rather than none, thereby leaving our churches (where God is fully present) empty. It baffles my mind. Yet, as always, "follow the money". Govt paid Catholic. Churches and others to shut down. They obviously couldn't say no.
I agree as far as this goes, there's more to the story as presented by Fr. Goring. It is possible also to receive our Lord with love and reference in the hands that he created and have been sacramentalized. Reverence was shown at the Last Supper with breaking bread in their hands/drinking wine and also much later until the Church decided this wasn't good enough for God. We (including me) need to be careful we don't judge others with this among other current issues confronting our church family. Some other religions are looking on with glee as we judge each other and try to turn the clock back to an idealized time. We can find over our 2000 plus history statements by many saints, priests, and laymen to lead us to one or another viewpoint so for me that is not the crux of the matter. What does the church teach after years of investigation and weighing all the facts? I'm tired of hearing opinions that tend to proselytize only one way as if they have the one and only answer - kneeling at an altar rail (that didn't exist in our earlier history and makes no concession for the disabled and elderly) and only taking the Eucharist on the tongue. Our church so far begs to differ. There is room in the Church's and God's heart for every Catholic (who has gone to confession to confess mortal sins and repeated venial sins) to receive Him.
When our church first reopened, parishioners were not allowed to receive on the tongue. Those who refrained from receiving on the hand did it out of love, honor, reverence for Jesus. I don't condemn those who receive on the hand. Refraining from receiving the Eucharist was exceedingly difficult but it also became a blessing, endearing Him more to me than ever befor.
I’d like to reference Holy Scripture when St. John the Baptist said: One mightier than I is coming and I am not worthy to loosen the straps of His sandals. Now, if HE is not worthy to loosen the straps of Jesus’ sandals then who am I to handle His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist??? I receive Holy Communion only on my tongue.
I just can’t receive communion in the hand and the decision comes from my heart. Spiritual communion is a small sacrifice as being in the presence of Jesus is so healing. All through the pandemic I have found priests who understand this. I make no judgment on any of this so I feel it’s a very personal calling to follow my heart and this has brought me so close to the Lord.
As someone who loves both the TLM and Novus Ordo, I think it also depends on the person him/herself. Receiving by hand does not equal being disrespectful, as long as the receiver acknowledges the sanctity of the Eucharist, and is reverend to Him. Do not forget, the Lord our Father sees all, and knows the reverence one feels in his heart.
What ever augument is put there is an easy sure answer which is, how did the girls at Garabandal recive the host from the blessed virgin? It was on the tongue for all to see and was even filmed in black and white!
Jesus is not amused in receiving communion in the hand. He demands priest to mouth and on bended knee. He made this clear a week before Easter this last year and was very angry. He is very powerful I couldn,t stop shaking for at least 6 to 8 hours from his anger.
I agree that it is not a sin to receive Eucharist in the hand. Our Lord demonstrated this at the Last Supper. He broke the Bread and declared this is His Body. He passed thr bread to the Apostles (,and all others gathered there, you can bet His beloved Mother was there). They ate the bread, picked up from their hands! And this continued in Early church...they did not have wafers as we have: they had actual bread shared and held in hands.
@@c.Ichthys He can break bread with his hands because he is the High Priest just like they do in mass. The priests are ordained by him to do so. As parishioners we,re not priests. We don,t have that authority.
@@gtibruce well, those girls were in ecstasy and we, who are not have not received visions and heavenly hosts. People should be able to recieve either way But ALWAYS with reverence and deep respect.
John Paul ll: "I can not be in favor of Communion in the hand, I can not recommend it! Touching the Holy Creations is a privilege of the ordained ones" (Dominicae Cenae ll) Rosary Scapular Mass...!!
@@edshakespeare9122 true - and the current pope approves of communion in the hand - guided by the Holy Spirit (Lumen Gentium 25 demands we give "religious assent of mind and will" to the current pope)
Nope! Father Gruner and his Apostolate tells "we are in the great Apostasy" written of in the Bible... If a Pope errors it can be over turned by next Pope if done Correctly (Canon Laws) also that we are not obligated to follow Him that this Apostasy begins at the top!!... his Apostolate is called the Fatima Center they can argue details with you about their teaching they're Traditional Mass, Magisterium... Pope Benedict XVI only gave Communion on the tongue and Kneeling
@@edshakespeare9122 send this to Fr. Gruner and tell him to get in line -- this teaching is from ECUMENICAL COUNCIL teaching (the highest teaching authority in the Church): "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
I wanted to share. I was a mix of receiving on the tongue but sometimes on the hand. A few months ago just after receiving on the hand, I had an experience. No words were given to me but I experienced in my soul that it was not right. I now only receive on the tongue. No judgement from me on how others receive. I just believe God wants me to receive on the tongue.
I remember when they took the rails away and said many times why would they do this. I feel we need to kneel and receive on the tongue to give the reverence that our Lord deserves. Someone said no wander others who visit our Mass and see us lined up like in a cafeteria to get the Communion and not showing any sign of holiness so why would one that is not Catholic believe this little host is the Lord when we treat Him so casually.
I read a story somewhere where a Catholic was explaining to a Muslim our belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ/God at the Consecration or simply that the Eucharist is God. The Muslim replied something to the order of “if I thought that was God, I wouldn’t be behaving like I see most Catholics at their Churches!”. Very true!
When were the rails taken away? I have seen rails in Mexico when visiting churches but I was not aware what they were for since I did my first comunión in the US. I don’t know if Mexico is still more traditional.
I have never touched the Holy Eucharist, never does the Lord even touch my teeth. Consumed whole and now I've found a church with a communion rail, on my knees! I love it!
How do you fulfill the command of the Lord to take and eat if you do not chew? In John 6:54 the Lord used words which are properly translated as "gnaw on." "The one who gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . ."
There's so many people who do not know that its more reverence to GOD our lord, if we receive the Holy comunión kneels donw and on the tongue , and also sometimes some people how receiving on the hand don't remember the they have the mask trying to put it on the mouth breaking the body of Jesus all in pieces and also they never look there hands for small particles of the holy comunión after.
Praise God that we have a priest now at our parish who constantly talks about the beauty, reverence of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. I changed about a year ago for all the reasons you offered. For years (since Vatican 2) I received in the hand. There just wasn't communication about either or.... you just received on the hand. I received First Holy Communion in 1953 and must have received on the tongue for the 10 years before Vat II but I don't have a strong recollection. We did have a communion rail and I recall it was meaningful. I love the Catholic Church under that carpet with all its beauty, history and uplifting spirituality!! Thanks Fr. Mark..... and Matt....
I don't feel comfortable receiving on my hand. I did twice and it's the most uncomfortable moments I feel in my life . If we're on Church , why fear the virus? God is powerful ❤️🙏 Don't doubt God
We were warned at Fatima to not follow the stars of heaven (meaning priests) dragged by the tail of the dragon (meaning serving the devil. We were also warned of the Great Apostasy in the Church beginning at the top of the Church. If the Bishop in link below had a commission from an enemy of the Church such as Satan himself or the head of free masons he could have not done a better job to destroy Catholic Faith in his country! ruclips.net/video/oZvFH8QrGi0/видео.html Its defined Dogma that the host is the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ! God has proven this. www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html Providence, which disposes all thing wisely and sweetly, has offered us book The Distribution of Communion on the hand, by Federico Bortoli, just after having celebrated the centenary of the Fatima apparitions. Before the apparition of the Virgin Mary, in the Spring of 1916, the Angel of Peace appeared to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, and said to them: “Do not be afraid, I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.” (...) In the Spring of 1916, at the third apparition of the Angel, the children realized that the Angel, who was always the same one, held in his left hand a chalice over which a host was suspended. (...) He gave the holy Host to Lucia, and the Blood of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, who remained on their knees, saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.” The Angel prostrated himself again on the ground, repeating the same prayer three times with Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.The Angel of Peace therefore shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. The prayer of reparation dictated by the Angel, unfortunately, is anything but obsolete. But what are the outrages that Jesus receives in the holy Host, for which we need to make reparation? In the first place, there are the outrages against the Sacrament itself: the horrible profanations, of which some ex-Satanist converts have reported and offer gruesome descriptions. Sacrilegious Communions, not received in the state of God’s grace, or not professing the Catholic faith (I refer to certain forms of the so-called “intercommunion”), are also outrages. Secondly, all that could prevent the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, especially the errors sown in the minds of the faithful so that they no longer believe in the Eucharist, is an outrage to Our Lord. The terrible profanations that take place in the so-called ‘black masses’ do not directly wound the One who in the Host is wronged, ending only in the accidents of bread and wine.Of course, Jesus suffers for the souls of those who profane Him, and for whom He shed the Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence cannot bring its potential effects into the souls of believers. And so we can understand that the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. This robbery attempt follows two tracks: the first is the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence.’ Many theologians persist in mocking or snubbing the term ‘transubstantiation’ despite the constant references of the Magisterium (…)Let us now look at how faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa. Receiving Communion on the hand undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments. On the contrary, attention to the smallest crumbs, care in purifying the sacred vessels, not touching the Host with sweaty hands, all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus, even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species: if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread, and if the dimensions of the fragments are accidents only of the bread, it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is! The substance is the same! It is Him! On the contrary, inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma. Little by little the thought may gradually prevail: “If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments, if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered, then it means that Jesus is not in them, or that He is ‘up to a certain point’.”The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful. (...) While the term ‘transubstantiation’ points us to the reality of presence, the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness. What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? By receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food. (…) 2. Since the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ Himself Who is true God and true Man we are bound by the First Commandment to reverence and adore Him. To do the opposite would be the sin of sacrilege. 3. Fatima is a divine apparition, the Angel instructed the children to receive Holy Communion kneeled and on the tongue. Are we more worthy than Angels to receive standing and on the hand? 4. Isn't it said ''Philippians 2:10-11 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So at the name Jesus we should bow but to receive Our Lord present in body, blood, soul and divinity we stand and receive him on the hands? 5. It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church.6. Is it not true that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest? (C.J.C. 845,1; Council of Trent 13 c.8, 22 c.1) St. Thomas tells us: Accordingly as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priests, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.” S.T. III, q. 82 a. 3. 6. And is it not true that the minister is responsible to God for the proper administration of the Sacraments that he personally administers? But some priests ask themselves, How can a priest be held responsible by God, if God (and the Church) does not also give to us priests the authority to dispense this Most Holy Sacrament according to God’s law and the universal law of the Church?” 7. And is not the universal law of the Latin Rite still that the Consecrated Host be placed on the tongue of the communicant as the document Memoriale Domini (1969) says:“...the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the Faithful. The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests, and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed.” 8. St Paul says ''Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.'' So if the law of God states that Holy Communion should not be given in the hand and not from so called ''extraordinary ministers'' which is a masonic term, Our Lord who is all knowing will not change his mind because of a virus. Communion on the tongue is the law of God and of the Church. 9. Our Lord also said ''Matthew 16:18 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.” After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.… So how can you think it is possible to get contaminated by a virus from receiving Holy Communion? Isn't that lack of faith? That's not really a sign of belief and trust. Peace with you! Queen Of Heaven and Earth's Special Militia
To this priest: It is the law! Communion on the hand should not be allowed, and it has done harm to those who know this, and feel forced to receive in the hand. The priest should honor the holy way of receiving, on the tongue. Bring back the altar rails; every knee shall bend. I am so blessed to be able to drive an hour to attend Latin Mass, knell at the altar rail, and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Praise God and thanks be to God that my priest will only give Communion on the tongue at the altar rail, unless the person is unable to walk to the altar, then this holy priest takes Communion to the person and that person receives it on the tongue! We are so blessed!!! 🙏🙏🙏🌹🌹💒💒
I was brought up in a convent and was told that we should never touch the Ciborium,, nor the Chalice, nor the Altar. Receiving Holy Communion in the hand was unheard of at that time. So now, when I attend MAss and not able to receive Our Lord on the tongue, I ask the Lord to send my Guardian Angel to gather up the Holy Fragments that fall to the floor and bring them to me so that I can still receive my Lord on the tongue Sacramentally.
I would love to see communion rails in every parish. Also why can’t the new mass be done with the reverence the Latin mass is done with. That’s the thing that makes me cringe in some parishes is the total lack of reverence even by the priest. I’m not saying these folks are deliberately doing this but I have seen the new mass done very reverently with incense and some Latin mixed in with communion rails.
@Steven Johnston The Novus Ordo COULD be done reverently and it probably was in the beginning back in 1969. The problem is that once you start changing some things, the temptation to change everything starts to overwhelm. Modernism is a destructive virus. The host lives and carries on for a while but in the end, the infection causes severe sickness.
@@johnobeid67 I agree with you there. It breaks my heart every time I watch people go up for Communion and they treat it as if they were receiving a skittle or a piece of candy.
@@stevenj1214able I remember listening to a Taylor Marshall video about what he calls his “Grover moment”. He was going up to communion and was confronted by the sight of a “communion minister” who was standing up there giving out communion wearing a great big image of Grover (the cute and cuddly Sesame Street character) on her pullover. He knew from that moment that he was done with the New Mass.
I'm a recent convert who was received into the church this past May. The real presence is one of the major things that drew me into the church. After my confirmation if just floored me as I began to see how many catholics don't seem to believe in the real presence. Then I went to a Latin Mass and man what a difference.
I attended 1 Latin mass since checking out the Church and then being baptized, so I have to agree with Fr Goring. The communion rail was more personal to me even when I couldn't take the Eucharist at that point, and bending a knee to my Lord and Savior is absolutely no problem for me. "Every knee will bow...." such a lovely thought. I started with receiving in the hand, but then came to my senses, and now only on the tongue. My hands ARE NOT consecrated to touch my Lord. It pains me to watch most these days take our Lord in hand. I wonder if they don't believe or are ignorant to the teaching and CC on this. But, now.. its tongue only.
I say yes to communion rails, kneeling, head scarf for the ladies - let’s bring out the red carpet! It is after all JESUS whom we receive. However, I also see the importance of obedience particularly when navigating these challenging times. Receiving in the hand has forced me to pay greater attention to the state of my soul......
@@fld9266 It's much like how a man wears a suit. Again, not needed but preferred, as we are in presence of Our Lord, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Pax Christi -
If you all looked at the profile name, it is a lady who made this comment. Must be careful to not make rash judgements and assumptions. This was not a man making this comment. What is so wrong with wanting to wear a vail in Church? It has nothing to do with making women feel inferior to men.
"bowing of the knees, the answer to the world's problems", I agree with you Fr. Makes a LOT of difference in our personal life, family life and the nation's.
The end of the matter: A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
B.) Protestant, schismatic modernists are like Luther who denied adherence to all popes in concert with Clcouncils past. 1-9, above, which said no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, 380 AD, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, say except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished since Peter giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus everyone must obey all councils from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic and like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1-9.
@@raymack8767 the problem Ray has is this: he makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue
@@angelicdoctor8016 You constantly say along the lines "you don't know anything" yet never prove step by step, with expounded sound, cogent arguments, what you claim you know but don't as many here have cleaned your clock and you run away. You have said again and again to me "your move" so this is a game to you, sadly, so grow up, Sissy on one of these called you out saying you used inappropriate language and Ad Homs. You can't even figure out that Sacred Scripture and Tradition from 30 AD until now are what the councils and popes relied upon that I referenced and when they say only certain people may touch sacred vessels, you can be excommunicated over certain things, etc, etc, it is forever. These popes then who worked with these councils and what they all established over the millenia spoke for God and it is forever. 1-9 all link together. Trent, #9, anchored 1-9 in the New Testament citing "Apostolic Tradition" thus for you to challenge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul in the NT
@@CharlottePrattWilson St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth". St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
A nun once told me: we do more harm in our lives with our tongues than our hands. If we remembered this more often, we'd never receive on the tongue. Reverence isn't made by a posture or body part, but is within us. Receiving Communion is a procession involving the entire assembly. What is our posture in a procession?
I agree whole heartedly with 'rickreed' in the above comment. The tongue is more sinful than the hand, 'a restless evil, full of deadly poison' as St. James put it. It is not a holy vessel, and certainly not 'holier' than one's hand. I received communion on the tongue kneeling at the rail from my first communion in 1956, until post-novis ordo in the later 1960's, when it became commonplace to receive in the hand. Didn't the Lord say, 'Take and eat' ? No where in scripture where it says Jesus broke bread with those present, either before or after his Resurrection, does He say, 'don't touch' or 'stick out your tongue, I'll feed it to you'...He broke it and GAVE it, handing it to those with whom he shared His bread, His body. Yes, it needs to be received with great reverence, and can be even when received in the hand. I am honored, and feel very blessed that I can personally receive the Lord in my hand and willingly 'Take... and eat' as He commanded. The level of reverence, honor, respect, and love for our Lord is brought to the Lord's table by each recipient INTERNALLY and regardless of external, whether one genuflects, kneels at a rail, or bows and stands before the priest with hands outstretched. What is important is my internal/spiritual response to His offering of "THIS IS MY BODY", with my acceptance, assent , and thankfulness. AMEN !
Bishop Schneider in his booklet entitled in English ’It Is the Lord!’ said that in the days when Communion was received on the tongue, with a paten used to capture particles, that there were always particles on the paten. Now they fall on the floor?
Love Fr Gorings message!!! Lets make sure that we receive Our Lord. Run to Him! However we can receive Him. Because I cant be without Him. Yes!!! I am not going to debate how to receive Him. Respectfully speaking, I learned how I took mass for granted up until I couldn't receive Him because of pandemic. I say this to Thank God that I see who is first in my life. Finally I see💖By Gods Grace
Holy Communion used to be given in the hand as we can see here: "In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen." Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315 - 386), Catechetical Lectures. Whether we receive the Holy Eucharist on our tongue or in our hand, what matters is HOW we receive it.
I'm so thankful to read this. I'm not able to kneel, would have to ask for help pestering others, but started feeling uncomfortable not receiving the Holy Eucharist on my tongue.
I can't get past the knowledge that when we receive on the hand particles of the Eucharist remain, not necessarily easily visible, and so those particles, which are Jesus, can wind up on our clothes, on the floor, etc. I don't want to knowingly subject Our Lord to that.
Aquinas actually addresses this. “If the change [in the consecrated elements] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.” A particle invisibly small seems to fit his definition here.
@@Snails888 You commented about "a particle invisibly small". But there can be visible small particles, which are still visible to an eye if you look attentively.
Personally I prefer to receive on the tongue but as our bishop has asked us to receive on the hand I think that in obedience there is peace. Why do assume that everyone who receives on the hand is sinning! Or being disrespectful!
Yes is really sad to see comments from people shaming or calling disrespectful to people who receive the Eucharist in the hand. To disobey to your bishop is to disobey Christ. I would prefer to receive on tongue but since I want to obey, Jesus knows are hearts thats what matters
I am old and remember the latin and pre Vatican II but am completely okay with things as they are now. Spent years being in the choir loft singing for the latin Mass before everyone was allowed to sing so i have seen it from both sides. And the changes have opened doors that are wonderful. Being an Eucharistic minister both at Mass and to the sick has taught me so much. Several times at Mass when i was a Eucharistic minister to each person i felt such a tremendous love for that person but i did not know most of the people. Later i realized that it was Christ Himself who loved his people and He allowed me to feel His love for His people. I so want to tell them of His great love for them. Again on receiving in the hand it gives me a few seconds of very intense adoration and on the way to reception there is a quick kiss before receiving. I am His spouse and only one place in all the canons is a woman called a spouse of Christ and that is Canon 604 ( or is it 605?).
Then you must be old enough to remember your First Holy Communion preparation, and being told how to receive on your tongue, because it was a mortal sin for any lay person to touch the consecrated Host. And I bet you never even dared to walk into a Catholic Church unless you were wearing a hat or a scarfe.
I have two seriously arthritic knees, awaiting a knee replacement for the worst one. No way can I kneel but it does not mean that I'm not deeply reverential when receiving the Eucharist on the hand.
I aswell, Father was raised as you were! Receiving communion In the hand. As a cradle Catholic, I felt it was ok & preferred it. But, when Our Lord Christ, knocked me off my horse, while on my way to Damascus, causing me a serious injury and becoming bedridden & several horrific surgeries...turned out to be the greatest gift & blessing that I've ever received from Christ. I then found my faith by finding EWTN & Mother Angelica 15 yrs ago. I developed a devotion to the Holy Rosary & Our Lady of Fatima. Many tangible MIRACLES started occurring. But, in my soul, I was shown that receiving communion in the hand was offensive. Why??? Because, the people in today's Mass hold hands during the Our Father prayer & then shaking hands with parishioners during the "sign of peace". Making our hands unclean. Then go and allow the most precious & Holy body of Christ on our unclean hands. This is offensive to Our Lord, whom suffered so much for our unworthy souls. Saint Thomas Aquinas was extremely important to me and my family. My beloved father's name sake was Thomas Aquinas. When my father passed away in 2010, and without realizing the actual day of my dad's funeral Mass & burial, literally was on the Feast Day of Thomas Aquinas. Plz allow me to say one more thing...your unjustified comment concerning Catholics receiving communion on the tongue as a rebuke or as you mentioned. Or possibly "out of spite" is ridiculous and unfounded. When folks receive on the tongue, the VERY FEW, I MIGHT ADD, they already realize that they're being watched. It's uncomfortable because some of those watching will scoff at those receiving on the tongue by saying...they're receiving on the tongue to show off their piety or say that they want attention. Both claims being ridiculous and unfair. Father Mark Goring, I commend you for your steadfast resolve to speak the truth.
Yes, i, and many of my friends, are longing for the Communion Rails..it would emphasize the reverence that has been lost over the years and needs to be returned.
Please bring back the communion rails so that we can kneel and receive Our Lord Jesus the way we were taught. The right&only way to receive HIM!!!❤🙏 Viva Cristo Rey👆
I find it odd that the clergy who supposedly believes in the miracle of transubstantiation, would be fearful of offering, said transubstantiated miracle, the actual body soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ of, on someone’s tongue, as opposed to their hands.
I thank my God for my priest David Dutra from St.Bernards,Tracy,Ca Father David prefers to give communion by tongue because it is the right way to receive Our Lord Jesus. Receiving it by hand is difficult and has more of a chance of the person dropping it or just walking away with it. He said its sad when someone leaves it behind in a pew.
I asked mother Mary while meditating and praying, if it was ok to receive holy communion in the hand, I miraculously received an answer several hours later almost 3 Am ( time I somehow often awaken and pray the Devine Mercy ) . I heard a voice in my mind (in Italian) " con le lacrime " which means in English, with tears. What is strange, except for the rosary and only the rosary ( I recited the rosary in Italian since childhood ) my mind function in English. Also, when I woke up in the morning, in my mind, I was hearing the song Salve Regina. which ended on waking What was amazing for all those that have ringing in the ears, the song was at that frequency but in the purest form just beautiful Never heard anything like this before nor after. I'd say it came from up above to confirm the given answer...
I recall once at a Cathedral during an Ordination, an elderly priest was disgusted when he saw I wished to receive on the tongue and he flung the Host with anger etc into my mouth. I did not feel hurt for myself but a tremendous sorrow that he forgot Who he had in his hands and mistreated. Poor Jesus. Sr. Carol
St Tarcisius was the kid saint who let himself be killed rather than show The Blessed Sacrament he was carrying because he knew they would commit sacrilege. Blessed Imelda was young too but she died of ecstasy after receiving her first communion, she died of love, in perfect union with Christ! ❤️ What about the particles of Christ which are lost when everyone received Our Lord in the hand and are more concerned about their mask than any the mini fragments that contain the totally of Christ?
As another person here, A Retrograde said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostlic Tradition. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO. One who goes against Trent becomes no better than Luther who went against Trent.
@@wendymitchell8245 The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not agree with your divisive comment. The schismatic Martin Luther taught divisive things as well.
@@wendymitchell8245 Trent is in agreement with others all the back to 115 AD at the very least. If teachings of men entered in that early, then will you teach us truth?
@@wendymitchell8245 Joseph Smith is in a long line of schismatic heretics like (a) Luther who said the church in his time was wrong. Then others (b) after him said he was wrong. Then otherrs (c) said b were wrong, and all the way down to you. You can't go from Luther until now for the truth. You have to go back to the beginning then down to Trent. And if they in AD 115 were alreadty off the rails, and it's anybody's call how to interoret the scriptures, then you make every person into their own pastor. Good going atomizing the gospel even further.
I haven't received Holy Communion since July 2020, my local Churches no long allow the Eucharist on the tongue. I cannot bring myself to receive Jesus on the hand until this ban is lifted, my heart and conscience tells me it is desecrating the Host I cannot bring myself to receive on the hand. I'll keep praying for the day I cannot receive Our Blessed Lord again 🙏🙏
Bishop Schneider has mentioned that in early church, people did receive on the hand but they had a clean cloth put over the cupped hands and the comunicant then raised the hand to the mouth in order to partake. So the comunicant did not touch the Host directly with his hand or handle it with the fingers. That could be an acceptable option.
That's a demonic temptation to scrupulousness. I knew an elderly and very devout man whose sense of his own sin, even directly after confession, was so strong that he felt he 'shouldn't' receive communion at Mass. He was going to confession but not communicating afterward or within a day or two feeling unworthy and not taking communion. I told him he was being tempted away from Christ, making himself spiritually weaker by refusing to accept the forgiveness we get in Mass and he was simply getting himself in deeper in this cycle of sin and confession but not accepting God's mercy and the strength of the Eucharist. He needed to go MORE often, not less. Look, who is really, REALLY happy if a person in a state of grace talks himself into never receiving the grace and power of holy Communion? God? Or Satan? Whom are you PLEASING by refusing communion based on your FEELINGS, not on God's teaching that if you eat his body and drink his blood he will abide in you? Satan is giving you these scruples and he is delighted that you keep away from the body of Christ: unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you, says the Lord. Your FEELING about it is a temptation, not the truth.
I always receive the Holy Eucharist in my tongue and if the communion rails is not available, I always kneel with my right knee bent. I always feel so humbled and blessed to receive Jesus in this way. Something about the physical gesture mimics my heart. I will always do this as long as possible. During the pandemic, I had to receive it in the hands but I always kneel. I love this communion with our Lord. God bless!
I once received the Host in the hand. After I placed It in my tongue, I noticed a small crumb lodged between my ring and finger. As I was raising my hand to lick it, the crumb was blown away. I was horrified. I looked for but couldn't find it. I told the priest about it after Mass and he said he will look for it. I have been extremely careful after that.
Our tongue is unworthy of Him, every part of us is unworthy of Him but his grace allows us to receive Him. Whether our hand or our tongue it's what we acknowledge deep inside that counts.
I believe your wrong and lovingly here's why. If the Angel Gabriel kneeled before our blessed mother a creature. We bring fallen sinners most definitely need to kneel while receiving out blessed Lord. God bless
@@keig6161 I don't think it's stated in the bible that angels kneeled before her, but I would not be surprised but regardless of the fact. It should not be made mandatory because worship comes from the heart not by kneeling nor standing. We kneel before Mary but we do not worship, we stand before Jesus yet we worship. Again it's the heart of the person and if your heart makes you feel like kneeling great, but it's not something that has to be done inorder to feel more reverant in receiving Jesus.
@@daninspiration4064 duuuuuude finally! I have always thought this but I rarely see others who think so too. God isn’t going to judge you at the end and say “you knelt to receive the Eucharist so you’re going to heaven, but you didn’t so you’re not” . It is definitely a right to receive on the tongue and kneeling but condemning others for not is not.
@ShariaFreeUK I do respect the Eucharist when taken by hand. I protect it by licking the palm of my hand after I put it into my mouth. I am just obedient to what the church is telling us to do. I have to disagree with your point and will continue to receive by hand unless the church hands a decree that says we need to go back to communion in mouth only.
@ShariaFreeUK I never said you can't receive it on tongue but I just disagree that it must be recieved by tongue. And I do not touch anyone or anything after I lick my hand. I santize right away and afterwards I go into the restroom to wash my hands. Point is that it should be ok for a person to receieve by tongue or hand. Those that decided to take it to their car or do otherwise with it is the sin of their own.
We are encouraged to form and act by conscience. My conscience leads me to only receive our Lord on the tongue. It isn’t pride, it’s a double mortification. Not only am I unable to receive in my local parish, and I do desperately need this sacrament, I am judged (or seen as judging!) by my priest and other parishioners . I think it would be very few people acting out of pride. :( This is a way for this practice to be permanently outlawed. We actually need to speak up, and protest with word and deed, otherwise this Lutherfarian custom will prevail to the further destruction of reverence and faith. We are encouraged to follow our conscience? Not in this matter!
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
B.) Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful. "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Like books in a bookshelf, the first book would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book to the right of it would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. It is modernism that says one only obeys the current pope. There is either a diminishing or an increasing of the papacy or there isn't to both. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even the 1st one, including St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture. But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition, previous councils building upon it, before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back to Sacred Scripture.
C.) Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francisband/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea and all popes in agreement throughout history and against Francis must be obeyed.
@@raymack8767 Confused Ray is spreading false information. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
As a lay person, borned after 2nd Vatican Council, to me I bow with reverence before receiving by hand. Answering Amen with conviction to the proclaimation, The Body of Christ is essential. Showing reverence, praying, praising, worshipping Jesus internally is utmost important.
I agree we must be reverent when receiving Our Lord but receiving our Lord on the hand causes Eucharistic particles to fall on the ground, etc. Every single particle of the Holy Eucharist is God. JMJ
Does the priest himself not release these particles too then?I am willing to go back to priest only, with a patten while I kneel at a rail. I can’t get down to the floor and back up at this age and a rail helps tremendously. Our church has the one priest and three Eucharistic Ministers who are mostly women. If we’re going clear back to St. Cyril, wouldn’t it need to be the priest only? No women? Our altar servers do not stand and offer the patten. I fear more of dropping the Eucharist off my tongue than if I put it in my mouth myself. My heart lights up within me after I receive my Lord! I don’t think that after 60 years of receiving Him, He makes me feel any different when I receive on the tongue in a church 45 miles away or in my hand at my local church. I have recently lectures on why I should receive on the tongue and almost feel bullied by the lecture and pressure to receive as they think I’m being unholy. I don’t think Jesus sees anything wrong with what I’m doing. He loves what’s in my heart.♥️
I came back to the Church in Aug 2020, having been gone for 20 years. I would have been devastated to be told that I shouldn’t receive Our Lord on the hand. The primary reason of my return was a desire to receive the Eucharist
I agree I receive on Tongue but sometimes priest don’t allow . But I would never not receive Jesus if they would not let me receive on my tongue because I love him so much I need him in my soul ❤️
2 years ago, I have found a traditional Latin church that doesn't permit parishioners to receive the Holy sacrament in the hand. We bow down, make a sign of the Cross and kneel in the front rails hands covered by white linen,.Women are in veils and dressed decently . The Mass is so solemn, It's so sacred and beautiful veneration. The first time I attended TLM, I sobbed so much from so much guilt that the majority of my life I have done sacrileges act to the body of our Lord. Whenever I see the Holy Eucharist being received by hands I can't help but cry for the Lclrd Our Savior , Jesus Christ.
Hello Fr. Mark. A worthy guest of pints with Aquinas. Great insights from both of you. Two Bible passages That come to mind are: Mt 18,6.... If the Bishops are misleading the laity on receiving the Eucharist on the hand because of the pandemic, their judgement is already passed. Eze 3,19....
I was convicted a few ago. Minor specs of the Holy Eucharist gets scattered when given in the hand which made me feel guilty about receiving on the hand.
When we are forced out of obedience to receive in the hand and no other choice, which has happened to me a couple of times when traveling - I feel anguish and immediately offer up my suffering of the desire to receive Him on the tongue silently.
Maria Simma, the Catholic Mystic who was visited by holy souls from purgatory for over five decades says she was told by the holy souls that the American bishops would remain in purgatory until the the American church went back to receiving on the tongue. I was a Eucharistic minister in San Francisco and when I initially move to the Houston area, I decided not to pursue becoming a EMHC minister in my local diocese because of the receive in the hand . However, ultimately I felt God was calling me to once again serve. I sensed The Lord was telling me that I was not personally culpable because the Bishops had approved receiving in the hand.
So many thousand if not millions of particles are left behind when receiving in the hand. I have also very reverently licked my palm after receiving. No man told me to do this. The Holy Spirit has urged me to receive on the tongue
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* 4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”* 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.* 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradition".*
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. And the protestant, schismatic modernists in the CC carry on his work today. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, which say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc.... All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone that by citing "Apostolic Tradition" anchors them in the New Testament making it all irreversible, forever.
C.) Finally, the past popes and councils worked together in agreement on 1-9 I listed above, and popes before and after them agreed with them. Once they declared certain actions involved with the Eucharist service to be sin, sacrilege, mortal sin, excommunicable offenses, and so on, it was sin. Period. Something can't be sin one year and not sin the next. The Council of Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, thus for people now to make the things said in 1-9 to not be sin, mortal sin, etc, (what was declared in 1-9 to be sin) would be akin to saying that what St. Peter and St. Paul said were sin are no longer sin. Thus for people now to say what 1-9 declared to be sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people saying it wasn't. You can't. Given The Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it links it all back to the saints of Sacred Scripture thus making 1-9 irrevocable. Since the Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it linked it back to the NT, anchoring it there. Sin is sin. This isn't relativistic. Truth doesn't change. To challenge 1-9, with Trent as a capstone linking it all together back to the New Testament, would be akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul.
@@raymack8767 So here it is, uneducated Ray. The problem is -- the Universal Church, under Francis, rejects Ray's thesis -- end of story, really. Ray is basically a Protestant.
Thank you for this video. What breaks my heart is that what should be a rare rare exception has become the regular thing and now we see the fruits of this...there’s hardly any Catholics that truly believe that Jesus is truly substancially present in the Holy Eucharist. I agree that we need to return to receiving Jesus in Holy Communion with deepest reverance, on our knees and on the tongue. This should be the norm and not the other way around. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. 🙏🏻🕊🔥❤️🔥🕊🙏🏻
A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
B.) Like books in a bookshelf, the first Popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. It is modernism that says one only obeys the current pope. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even the 1st one, including St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition, thus an increasing of the papacy. But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition and the previous councils building upon councils before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back Nicaea and ultimately to Sacred Scripture.
C.) Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea and all popes in agreement and against Francis must be obeyed.
@@raymack8767 You lack understanding, Ray -- you should really stop spreading misinformation. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
Okay, during THE pandemic bishops want Holy Communion to be given in the hand. What was their reasoning PRIOR to THE pandemic? The bishops have lost their spiritual compass, blind guides! 🌹
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* 4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”* 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.* 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Traditon".*
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone. By Trent citing "Apostolic Tradition" it anchors 1-9 in the New Testament making it irreversible forever. To challenge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul.
C.) Sacred Scripture and Tradition work hand in hand from 30AD until now and forever. Period. The past popes and councils worked together in agreement on 1-9 I listed above, and popes before and after them agreed with them. Once they declared certain actions involved with the Eucharist service to be sin, sacrilege, mortal sin, excommunicable offenses, and so on, and Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, then for people now to make them not sin, mortal sin, etc, (what was declared in 1-9 to be sin) would be akin to saying that what St. Peter and St. Paul said were sin are no longer sin. Thus for people now to say what 1-9 declared to br sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people now saying it wasn't or isnt. You can't. Given The Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it links it back to the saints of Sacred Scripture. Sin is sin. This isn't relativistic. Truth doesn't change.
@@raymack8767 LIsten to MIchael's explanation to you! Open your ears. To quote Michael, all of these are under sacramental discipline. Sacramental discipline is always subject to the living magisterium. You don't seem to understand how that is classified under canon law. Giving more quotations, and as far as the council of Tent is concerned you didn't provide the quotations, doesn't change that fact. Your premises are faulty leading to a faulty conclusion. The magisteirum DOES have this authority and they have acted on it. For you to deny that is choosing an ideology over reality. Either that or you have to reach a sedevcantes conclusion which is condemned under the First Vatican Council. When appealing to heresy is your only fall back position, its time to re-examine your premises.
@@angelicdoctor8016 On another thread you presumed to speak for Christ, blasphemer, You have torpedoed your claim to being relevant now and having any useful input. Time and again when others, like myself, have A.) sound, cogent retorts to your B.) lack of step by step taking thing all the way back through C.) Sacred Tradition and D.) Sacred Scripture to the E.) beginning and link it forward to the F.) Council of Trent, with all the G.) popes during this council and H.) before and after, plus the I.) Councils before it and J.) popes before and after Trent all in agreement with C through I, you then respond with "I know, you don't" - your continued nothing burger response. And add to it what Sissy on here said about your inappropriate language and Ad Homs usage and its clear you need to grow up. And given C through J, in contrast with your nothing burger replies, crack a book open for once and learn something instead of running off at the mouth all the time. Your pride, arrogance, and projecting are showing and it's past old, schismstic protestant modernist. And quit propping up Pope Pachamam, too, who leavened the whole lump by inviting Pachamama devotees and letting them play the fool on sacred ground. But no doubt you rejoiced in that, so I'm wondering if you are a closet pagan. Sigh.
And this issue has never been addressed during this supposed Eucharistic Revival....I fell for this for the longest time...I am 64...so I very well remember Altar Rails (not addressed) and kneeling before..I am with Fr Goring, after reading more about the Eucharist...I started kneeling and receiving on the tongue again...As a Knight we need to Defend the Holy Catholic Church...and that means bowing before our Lord and Saviour when I receive him weekly... It just makes so much sense. I did wrestle with the Pride thing, but thought about it long and hard and now am very comfortable with my decision. Our Priest is from Nigeria and is spectacular! He put a Kneeler out for people who wish to receive on the tongue. As a Knight of Columbus I took my Degree's seriously and do my best to live them. Receiving on the tongue is one way I can do that.
My parish follows the bishop’s COVID guide lines recommending in the hand, but we are allowed on the tongue, because you cannot be refused according to Church rules. I receive kneeling and on the tongue for reverence. We have to stay in our pews, the priest and deacon come to us.
Back when I was an altar server, I would regularly see sizable Pieces of the Blessed Sacrament on the paten that I had been holding during Communion. Mind you, those Fragments were just what had fallen from the ciborium on the way to the person’s hands or tongue. When receiving on the tongue, any Pieces that fall are caught by the paten, and the Host is consumed without any being lost. However, after the Host is placed in someone’s hands, there are additional pieces that fall off and will be lost. If the thought of a Host falling onto the floor is bothersome to us, I would ask why a Fragment of that same Host is not also a cause for concern.
@Angelic Doctor Thank you for your advice/concern and for sharing your understanding of this matter. Just to clarify, my desire for receiving on the tongue is not grounded on adherence to medieval church practices. Rather, it is based upon a desire to avoid any loss of the Blessed Sacrament (as I originally wrote). In addition, I have realized it helps dispose me to receiving Our Lord with more reverence, and (if permitted) the act of kneeling helps to remind me of my littleness before Him.
Fr Mark, I appreciate your understanding on this matter. As we were raised through the transition from the Latin Mass to novus ordo, we were taught how to take Holy Communion on the hand. Then the sanctuaries were redesigned, the altar rails removed, as you said.. Now I am old and unable to kneel without a 4-point manipulation of my body, and getting to my feet is even harder - it is like a giraffe getting to its feet after a drink. I take the host on my hand very aware of what I am doing, I always adore it and welcome Jesus reverently before placing the blessed host on my own tongue. Wash my hands before attending Mass. I am sure not everyone does this, though they ought to, but in a way it is a beautiful little step to acknowledging what we are doing, who it is that we place in our bodies to support us through the day and night. So perhaps a little more instruction, as a reminder of what we do, from the pulpit, more careful instruction of new communicants, is a good idea, too. Look up and acknowledge this Body of Christ when I say "Amen", carefully lift it and place it in my mouth as something so precious, not a handful of nuts off a dish. And here in Australia it is a rare thing for people to receive Communion on the tongue. Our hands are a tactile and very integral part of our bodies. And the host ends up in our dirty mouths and digestive systems anyway. The raging debate about novus order vs Traditional Mass has not really taken off here, SSPX members are few and far between - thank the Lord, I say, because they are causing huge division in our Church. Changes were made to our Liturgy from Rome, we have faithfully followed those changes as promoted, supposed to advance the Faith in our Church - if this has been erroneous, that is another discussion to be had, and not from the self-righteous but from the top, please. Surrounded by conspiracy theories, contention, everywhere, we really do not need to be made to feel guilty for following the teaching of the Church as sent out from Rome in the second half of last century. SO PLEASE DO NOT THROW THIS THING AMONG THE FAITHFUL AND ACCUSE US OF BEING SINFUL THERE ARE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS IN THE US WHO TELL US IT IS A MORTAL SIN! I love the Eucharist, attend Mass every day or as frequently as possible, for this intimate meeting with our Lord.. Please don't push your high and mighty North American values on we who live in lesser zones under Bishops who do not seem to make issue about this.. Anybody who receives a host on his tongue is easily able to remove it from his mouth should he intend to desecrate it, so this does not necessarily protect the host from malign minds. My issue is with those distributing Communion, which is a task often carried out irreverently, without any acknowledgement that this is a sacred object being given to us. If the Priest or Lay Minister plonks the host on our outstretched hands as if he were dealing a pack of cards, that is so insulting, and in my mind demands to be called out by we devout communicants. And remember that at that sacred Last Supper, in instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus did not ask his apostles to present themselves to him and put out their tongues to receive his special gift to them. "Take this and eat" - the way human beings would do? Probably pass it around by hand, and share. He is worthy of reverence and expects respect and awe from us, but knows well our human condition - which is what it is really all about - His incarnation, His life among us, and ultimately His sacrifice, both at this Table and on the Cross, and which actually makes this special Eucharist all the more truly amazing.
Please Father Goring, some situations are "extreme", "extraordinary", or "unusual". When this becomes a loophole by which the exceptional rarity becomes the standard, then it is by it's nature being abused. A young lady can, in extreme conditions, carry a child safely to term very young. This however SHOULD NOT become the standard. Certain musical instruments can be used for the mass only in unusual or extreme situations, yet here we see every manner of exception made against what the rule obviously intended. Just because one CAN, it does not follow that one SHOULD.
@@angelicdoctor8016, OH, my Modernist, phenomenological friend returns!!! Delightful! Hi, I hope that you are doing well and have decided to open yourself to both Truth and beauty! What is the issue today? The V2 direction on the mass had communion in the hand as an extraordinary option in its guidance. Period. In the early Church, they also gave confession before crowds. The point, and coincidentally the valid analogy, is that whereas one has often been exceptionally able to receive in the hand, it is contrary to our Church disciplines and has resulted in a cavalier attitude toward the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The polls bear this out to a painful degree. Disciplines develop in light of greater specificity and refinement in existing doctrine and dogmas. What was never doubted in those days of the Church you cited was Christ's true presence. It is widely available in the earliest documents. Only today, in your Modernist age of infidelity and philosophical nominalism, is there such a problem as needs the Truth of the true presence to be reinforced in practice. Even the arch-heretic Luther did not deny that Christ was in the Eucharist. So in times when people undervalue the divinity present in the Eucharist, you would reinforce their indolence with picking it up like chips out of their hands? Do you have kids? When you teach your kids, some things may be acceptable when their understanding and intent are correct. If they begin to take your magnanimity for granted, you have to reassert the rules which will more properly teach them what is right. This is why proper humility and penitence before God should be observed in the sacraments. This means reception on the tongue, on ones' knees. The CDW has suggested that moving back to kneeling reception on the tongue is more fitting with the understanding of the true presence. The faith was growing and spreading BEFORE the adoption of the Nouvelle Theologie in the 2nd half of the 20th century.
I die a little everytime I take communion on hand. I come from Poland and almost my entire life recieving communion on tongue and kneeling was norm. I even remember communion rails times. I live in UK atm and I am yet to see somebody take communion as Im used to. Can't wait for this pandemic to end.
I’m from Poland as well and it saddens me that people treat the Eucharist very superficially. The priests no longer use the paten. People come to mass in sneakers and sweatpants . There is no respect for anything. “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the HANDS of men, and they will kill Him “
@@czeneke "Catholics" nowadays don't even believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ. Where I live, lots of people take communion without fasting and even without confessing grave sins. I guess that's the product of having the new liturgy designed by protestants...
I'm a member of what I guess you all call a Novus Ordo Catholic Church. I was baptized/confirmed in 2016 and also serve there as a sacristan and very occasionally as an extraordinary Eucharistic minister (which I am deeply uncomfortable with but have done twice when there was a need). Over the past couple years I've developed a real attraction to the greater reverence in the traditional Latin Mass. Especially Communion Rails. I would much prefer to receive kneeling at the rail on the tongue and a return to the deeper reverence in the Latin Mass.
Well spoken ., it is much better and reverent to receive kneeling and on the Tounge . I myself would keep away From those who promote. standing and on the hands Especially if it s a NOVUS ORDO mass as. I believe that its SACRILEGIOUS. to touch the Eucharist. I have now COMMITTED my self to SUNDAY WORSHIP at the SSPX . it is TRUELY a Blessing .!!
I am a convert. About 7 years ago, I was confirmed after going through RCIA twice. Not once did I see a person take the host on their tongue. In fact, I never heard it mentioned. So when I started to hear people talk about this (mostly on the Vortex) I was confused. We still take Jesus in our hands, then to the mouth. I'm just grateful we get Jesus at all these days. I love it when the server rings the bells at the moment of consecration because at that instant, I believe God, in the person of the Holy Spirit has entered the church and performed a true miracle. I can physically FEEL spirits around us all. Maybe angels are there too. I like to think so.
Welcome to the Church, Andy! It's a known fact that converts are frequently better catechised than many cradle Catholics, and I can see that you are devout and love your new home. I'm not familiar with the RCIA, but got my Catholic education way back prior to Vatican II, so the Latin Mass was part of my life. Children were taught that it would be a serious sin for a lay person to touch the Sacred Host, and the mere idea of receiving Holy Communion in your hand was just unheard of. I'll admit that I went along with the "hand" thing, just to be like everyone else, but did not feel comfortable, and now, older and wiser, I regret it. It doesn't bother me at all now to be the "different" one in church! I'm not trying to influence you, just to give a historical background. However, I do encourage you to attention a Latin Mass if you get the opportunity.
@@alhilford2345 Now, see, that makes total sense. Nobody has explained to me that we were once taught that a lay person touching the Host was considered a sin. Wonder why the Church changed their minds on that one?
@@alhilford2345 This whole topic really got me thinking so I went to the Catechism and found this..."On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people's unique, PRIESTLY vocation:...The baptized by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are CONSECRATED to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood. page 783. In my mind this means that I am holy, even my hands, so there is no problem with holding Jesus in my hands. And having come from a charismatic background, this is repeating what I was taught there, although using different words. The meaning is the same. And thank you for your kind reply to my first post.
@@alhilford2345 the historical background, is that everyone received communion on their hands ... just as Jesus to the deciples. Early, in the Church people would have the Eucharist in their homes and when travelling they would carry the Eucharist in their satchel. Only when there were lots of Priests did this change. So many people don't know the history of our Church.
I just do not understand why us Catholics get lost in technicalities; we know that under certain circumstances the church can authorize to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist in the hand. I also rather receive the Eucharist on the mouth, but we are in the middle of a very infectious pandemic and if the church decrees that this is a time to receive it in the hands so be it. Our heavenly father sees what is in our heart (our soul) and as long as you take the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with veneration and understanding God will judge us based on that. We are living in a time when some Catholics are behaving like the pharisees and the sadducees judging others based on the external showing and an overemphasizing stress on rules, remember Matthew 15:18-20: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone”.
Yeah, why stress the small stuff like the body of creator of the universe... look there is a coof that almost no one under 80 dies from that is what is important.
@@CatholicBossHogg you know that body came as a helpless baby, touched lepers, and finally suffered and died naked with criminals. Jesus is nothing if not humble. I think he can handle your hand.
If you allow in the hand- that's how the host gets stolen. I watched in horror as a man took it and ran down the aisle smiling. He was a bit crazy. I cried and went to the priest after mass. The deacon said, we just can't always see things happening-
No, it is no sin! If you have awe, love, humility and genuine faith - than you are in a good condition. Jesus sees the heart, and he, who died for us and beared our sins, have no problem, when we make communion with our hands! I am very sure for that!
I get cold sores on my lips. In the most contagious stage they are not visible to an outsider. To deter the spread of cold sores to another, I am pleased to receive the Eucharist in my hands. Before, I would refuse Communion when I felt one coming on. For health reasons I am happy I can receive in the hands.
Priests traditionally only touch the host with 1) the tips of their first finger and thumb (canonical digits), 2) hold the fingers together when not handling a host 3) AND purify their fingers with wine and water after distributing Holy Communion. Even if particles are not visible they are very often felt as a little "grit". Who among the laity, when receiving in the hand, are purifying their palms and fingers like the priest purifies his canonical digits? A more spiritual reason...Who receives food in their mouth by another person? 1) Babies (we can't do anything without Christ) 2) The infirm (we are sick and need to be fed) and 3) Spouses at their wedding reception (the Church is the Bride of Christ)
Some people incorrectly believe that the pope needs to speak with infallibility to be obeyed. Ecumenical Council teaching rejects this idea as we see below. Infallibility is a charism reserved for the needed response of supernatural faith, but much of Church teaching only requires the assent of reason. THE POPE is OK with us receiving Eucharist in the hand - bottom line - it's sinful to call "evil" what the pope says is "good". Matt was clear - the Church permits it and we in obedience accept that teaching - "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." Lumen Gentium 25
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. Bam, just made it theological. But seriously, I said spiritual, meaning we can grow spiritually by exercising the humility needed to be fed by another (the priest in Persona Christi)
A.) The end of the matter. From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* 4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”* 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.* 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradition".*
B.) Protestant, schismatic modernists are like Luther who denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, 380 AD, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, say except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished since Peter giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus everyone must obey all councils from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic and like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1-9.
@@raymack8767 Ray is off base, but doesn't seem to care. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
When I first received 1st Holy Communion in 1965 we received on the hand and we dipped it into the chalice to receive His blood as well. The reverence I had then has only deepened. It is our heart and mind that is important and holding on to the most fundamental truths taught by Jesus and not subverting them. To me Jesus is present and is waiting to come to a heart that is open. Intentions are the most important thing. 🙏♥️
Except that it is absolutely forbidden for non-priests to self-communicate by intinction. You were initiated into a Eucharistic abuse. Sorry about how you 'feel' about it. On your knees in front of God is appropriate. And the humility of being fed by the father, not 'taking' communion like fries and ketchup is intrinsically more reverent.
Many Eucharistic Miracles have happened where the bread turned to Eucharist became live flesh with fresh bllood. Eucharist alone is sufficient. It is body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.Amen.
I think some of the respondents might have misunderstood your wording, but I get the spirit of your message. I am of the belief that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling is the best way, but the Church herself has decided that receiving in the hand is morally acceptable. A HUGE part of being Catholic is understanding that we have a moral obligation to be obedient to the Church. So, while on the tongue may be ideal, to receive in the hand is wholly acceptable. The Church HAS since come out and said it is not acceptable to dip the Body in the Blood, so that's an easy "case closed" lol. My other reply to the main thread more clearly states my understanding and beliefs about why it's actually VALUABLE for the Church to permit reception in the hand, contrary to popular opinion!
So when the Church "allows" women priests, we're not supposed to condemn that? Who gives you authority to decide where the line is drawn? I will never receive the Holy Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in my hand because someone said it was ok. Admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant.
@@angelicdoctor8016 I believe it's in other countries other than the US, for example, where communion on the hand is not allowed. Not sure how many of those are left though.
Yes and my family Parish when we were souped on the tongue a lot of people bullied us for it. If you read canon law and other documents of the Catholic Church though receiving on the tongue is the church's preferred method (the norm). Receiving in the hand in the churches eyes it's supposed to be an exception for extreme or unusual circumstances. There's nothing special about receiving something in the hand we do that every day it's a common thing to do. However if we receive the Eucharist on the tongue that will be the only thing we ever receive on the tongue which makes it special. Also the only other time that we kneel before someone is when we are proposing or if we still have kings and queens this is another thing that can bring more specialness. Since Jesus is both bridegroom and King and God kneeling is quite fitting.
@@angelicdoctor8016As another person here, A Retrograde said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostlic Tradition. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for the schismatic NO. To go against Trent makes one heretical like Luther.
@@raymack8767 Ray, Ray, Ray. Let me offer you a ray of hope! Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
Receiving on the tongue is a beautiful act of reverence. However, it is important to remember that it is just that - an act of reverence. It should bring us closer to the Lord, but if we become prideful because of it, we are doing the opposite of what He wants. I only offer this caution because I have found this tendency in myself in the past. God Bless :)
It shouldn't have to be controversial. It was changed so anybody could handle and distribute it. It is just a.common piece of bread. No bid deal. I have seen it neglected on the nurses' station in the hospital. No wonder no one believes in it anymore. Good grief.
Every time I have had to receive it on my hands I find minuscule pieces of the host on my hands. This is why receiving Him on the tongue is more than just reverence. Imagine how many people receive Him and then wipe him on the first thing they touch.
@@sissybrooks8588 Oh my dear, it really is not just bread. It has become the Body of Jesus as He told us. When you know this, everything changes. God bless you.
The reason I've chosen not to receive on the hand comes from a great increase of dropping the particles of the Eucharist. I did receive twice in the hand after Masses re-opened but felt a great sense of almost guilt for doing it. I wanted to be obedient but it honestly went against my conscience. I do not believe it is sinful to receive on the hands but I genuinely understand why people choose not to receive at all if they are denied on the tongue. I could understand it being spiritual pride, but also, if one is doing it simply out of respect for Our Lord, I think that is a good reason to abstain. I would rather make a spiritual communion than drop a fragment of the host...it really doesn't come from pride. Thankfully many churches by me allow reception of the Eucharist on the tongue. I think another important note is that no bishop can make a rule of no receiving on the tongue because it is canon law. I think if bishops are specifically denying a pius act, there is more to be worried about.
the particles of the Eucharist are no longer Eucharist as Thomas Aquinas affirms: "if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain."' Also, the early Church received Eucharist in the hand - it's the earliest tradition.
We have gone thru a horrible forbidding of the faithful to receive the sacrament; not only communion, but the sacraments of confession, anointing of the sick , proper burial need I go on. While liquor stores and abortion clinic were called essential. We were restricted from the mass. And to how many could enter even with open air masses . Shut out and closed down. Why would any believer want have a spiritual communion when you can receive the Body,Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist. I will go to Communion. God protect the Church and the sacraments so we may receive in a state of grace.
@@angelicdoctor8016 The early church received on the hand only during persecution. St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
@@itsnando20 you're mistaken and my reference from St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an example shows that reception on the hand was common place in the early Church - the practice did change, and Basil is part of the age that saw a gradual change to reception on the tongue -- there's no denying that both practices are a part of Church history
@@itsnando20 Here is St. Cyril of Jerusalem (from the mid 300s) on the topic: 21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones? 22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries. 23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offense. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thessalonians 5:23:- To whom be glory and honour and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
When Christ instituted the Eucharist, recall that the consecrated Eucharist was broken and passed to each hand of the Apostles (and those gathered for the Last Supper). The early Church did not place the Eucharist on the tongue, it was in the hands. We have their writings. They also appointed other Church members to bring the Eucharist to others. Quote: (St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 348) _“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but _*_placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right,_*_ which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”_ _(Catechesis mystagogica_ V, xxi-xxii, Migne _Patrologia Graeca 33)_
Yes to bringing back communion rails. Yes to greater reverence and renewal of tradition.
nobody cares
The Ordinariate uses the rail
early Church received in the hand with no communion rails, so now what?
@@angelicdoctor8016 keep in mind that the early Church was living in persecution. The practice of Communion on the tongue with altar rails and pattens was developed over time to increase reverence and remove the risk of desecration for our Lord. I wrote a more extensive comment a little earlier, it discusses another defense for communion on the tongue. I do encourage reading the whole thing.
@@icouch Wow. Openly proud and arrogant much?
I am Malaysian catholic. Personally, I believe receive the Eucharist by tongue and on knee is act of our of humility. Among other attributes, Our Lord is All Pure and Holy and He deserves our deepest respect, worship, adoration, praise, thanksgiving and honor. Ingratitude hurts our Lord.
Outstanding comment!
Me too but now since the pandemic, priests refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue
@@alveodas nothing much the laity can do right
I totally agree with everything you say not least because it pleases me as you speak from the heart
I am from Poland and we were always receiving Eucharist on the knee and on the tongue ,by consecrated hand of the priest .First in my life I saw Americans to receive Holly Communion on the hand and in my opinion it is degradation of the church and disrespectful to our Lord Jesus Christ.Now pandemic is used to force all people on the earth to follow this terrible custom 🥲by free masons order!
Respectfully, I feel a difference in the Eucharist at the TLM. Kneeling and on the tongue is a fitting way to receive our Lord. I've seen the priests at the TLM, deliver the Eucharist efficiently with everyone kneeling at the Communion rail. The TLM attendance has tripled over lockdown, by the grace of God.
You can simply say TLM instead of TLM Masses
TLM means Traditional Latin Mass
@@mgglorym1571 👌
By the fruits you will recognise them.
Totley not agreed with receiving Eucharist on the hand.
No explanation.
And early Church before when gave on the hand people put some cloth and they took Eucharist with the tongue.
I’ve been attending a Tridentine, traditional Latin Mass in Arizona. it is FULL of young families. So, beautiful. I love it.
I live in Arizona too but in Sierra Vista- only one large parish here and a much smaller one both with Norvus Ordo Masses. But our three priests are very respectful and honor that Lord at our Masses. Our parish has confession 7 days a week twice a day and an Adoration chapel open 24/7 It really is a great parish
very smart woman hope is in You beautiful young people
Me too in Ottawa
What about this:
I was told by a canonical lawyer and priest that neither a priest nor a Bishop can deny their people the right that Holy Mother Church has granted us, which is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. He stated this during the pandemic. In his parish we are able to receive on the hand and on the tongue and, I'll say, the majority of communicants receive on the tongue. Praise God for this parish!
anything is possible under the pretext of Corona.
It would be good to have a resource pool, to have documents to take to the Bishops who disallow their people communion, or disallow following conscience.
@Nereida Luna you are lucky! I mentioned (very respectfully) to a priest at a parish I go to that “Our Orthodox brethren still receive our Lord by the common spoon, why are Catholics not able to receive on the tongue?” His response was “well, may be you should just go and join them”!!!! That’s the Novus Ordo for you!
your canon lawyer is disobedient to the pope - that's a sin for sure
@@angelicdoctor8016 Does that include heretic popes such as Honorius I and Francis?
When our priest allowed kneelers for receiving Holy Communion this last month, I went back to my seat and sobbed because it made me realize exactly who I was receiving. The body and blood of Our Lord Jesus! Of course we should kneel and receive on the tongue.
Jorge Bergoglio said that Vat II is the Magesterium, but Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility, thus the TLM is the proper mass, per the infallibility the Council of Trent possesses.
Based upon this, if VII is the current Magesterium, then it does not possess infallibility.
Since the Magesterium has, at least up until Vat II possessed infallibility, then Vatican II would be a false Magesterium.
Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic.
[The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself, statements from the popes on the status of the council show it was not the intent to make new dogma, dogma cannot be created accidentaly, and claiming a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic because it was titled as such is just a positivist argument.] [H/t Christopher Marlowe.]
7th Session of the Council of Trent, changing the rites:
Canon 13. "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."
Ergo, Vat II is pastoral. Ergo Sum, given the following Lumen Gentium of Vat II, we are to follow the Council of Trent:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
The Magesterium and fallibility do not exist together simultaneously, but the Magesterium and infallibility do exist together simultaneously, thus the Council of Trent and the Magesterium exist together simultaneously.
Thank you so much for taking time to send me your response. You are very learned. I wish more people would read and study our Catholic religion and history.
@@CharlottePrattWilson I'm so happy that I'm able to do so; to God be the glory!
Since beginning to explore the church about August of last year, I've had to receive blessings each Mass before finally, 4/3, being baptized. I was fine until receiving first communion.. as soon as my Lord hit my tongue, I literally shot back to my face, buried my face in my hands and sobbed. So, so long to wait to receive Him. The cradle Catholics and those lukewarm need to recall how precious this gift is to us. His sacrifice to bring us home due to OUR sin. God bless Freedom..
@@museluvr That is beautiful! If only other Catholics would understand and believe who they are receiving! Thank you for your response! God bless you!🙏🏻❤️
My personal opinion is that my hands are not consecrated, so I can not touch the Body of our Lord. I prefer to receive kneeling down and on the tongue.
@@paulasmith2426 Nuns are not allowed to do what you say, secondly doing so in ignorance on their part is material heresy, not full bore heresy, as decided for centuries by the church, and God has winked at sin before but once one knows better... And one can be young and sincere and still go against hundreds of years of established church teaching.
The moment you entertain doing that you become a protestant.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth".
St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
Francis is promoting things contrary to popes, councils, etc. He promotes invincible ignorance when the Apostles, Apostlic Fathers, ECF's and past them didn't, Jesus Christ said one must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, St. Paul wrote that God commands all men everywhere to repent, wrote that there is no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved, etc.
And the modernists should be ashamed at pretending they want to go back because it was the early church and using that as a shield because they and others aren't saying anything about how to stop sacrilege, which church history shows why receiving in the hand was stopped.
@@paulasmith2426 As another person here, A Retrograde, said:
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostles. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO.
2 synods, one council, one ecumenical council, at least one pope, most likely more, the Council of Trent, and hundreds of years of Apostoluc Tradition overrides Francis and Vatican II.
Your tongue is not consecrated either. There is a first taste of salt with a prayer that the child is "no longer to hunger for want of heavenly food,..." It has naught to do with consecrating the mouth so as to receive the Holy Eucharist. See the Latin Tridentine Baptismal Rite (Part 1; section on The Imposition of Salt).
Again, I ask, if your hands cannot receive the Host because they are not consecrated, how can your mouth? The command of the Lord for BOTH species was "TAKE, eat..." and "TAKE, drink..."
The entire "up-ing the sacredness to prevent abuse still runs against Christ's command for His people to "Take. Eat....Take. Drink."
Additionally, one might note that Christ's COMMAND to His communicants begins with the key word, "take," which indicates the taking is neither the eating, nor the drinking. It is the handling which preceded the eating or drinking.
Again, Christ was not handing them Communion wafers, but passing the flat bread.
The "sop" which was dipped in by Jesus and Judas would have been the charoset (a paste, or relish mixture of figs, nuts, spices, wine, and honey). They weren't dipping their bread in the cup of wine Jesus consecrated.
The disciples also would not have been kneeling (and certainly not at an alter rail) when they received the bread and cup from the Lord.
The Church has created many practices and rules to make a point regarding the sacredness of the body and blood of Christ. But those practices making theological points are not the matter itself. Jesus did not walk around saying, "Don't touch me! I am consecrated to God! In fact, I am God! So, look. But don't touch! Stand back, all you unconsecrated sinners!" Nor did he say to his disciples, "Hands off the bread I blessed! I washed your feet, not your hands!" Nor did He personally distribute the elements to each of them. Again, we should note that the bread had to be BROKEN (22:19). We see the same with the wine. It is passed, not personally handed to each of them (Mt. 26:27).
Also, the Church requires fasting an hour before taking Communion. But that is an innovation. For in Mk. 14:18 we see the disciples were RECLINING and eating. In fact, Jesus gave Communion WHILE they were eating! (Mk. 14:22).
You see, the Church has created many rules/laws to emphasize the sacredness, the respect, the honor one is to have when taking Communion.
But those rules are not inherent to, or necessary for Communion.
They reclined at table. Today we sit at tables when eating. But I don't hear any clamoring for reclining during Communion.
They passed the bread taring pieces off (at least in those days), today we have a priest distributing.
Still, where is the distribution of the sacred wine?
@@malcolmkirk3343 When one attends confession before mass the tongue is consecrated as one has been absolved of all sins.
Secondly, that and receiving the Eucharist, doubly consecrates the tongue.
@@paulasmith2426 The Apostle Paul wrote that God once winked at sin but now commands all men to repent. His writings and the rest of the NT show this is for Jews, Gentiles, in accordance with Jesus Christ' teaching to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to *every creature*". This overrides Pope Francis who said the following:
A.) "It is not licit to convince them of your faith. Prosyletism is the strongest venom against the ecumenical path".
Francis speaking to a group of Lutherans, Paul VI hall 10/13/2016
"We should never prosyletize the Orthodox."
C.) Francis has repeatedly said that non-Catholics, schismatics, protestants, etc, all have martyrs, which contradicts Pope Eugene IV AND the Council of Florence, and the centuries and centuries of precedentand church tradition they built upon then at this council, all of which overrides Francis as they have precedence before him and he is subject to councils before him: Nicean, Florence, Trent, doesn't matter, he is subject to them.
Have not taken the Holy Eucharist for about 25yrs due to not being worthy and doubts about my faith. Now that I repented and acknowledge the true and ever living God, the Father Almighty, my tears overflows as I take the Holy Eucharist with my tongue for I do not feel at ease of holding Him with my unclean hands. Praising and thanking Him as I kneel in the pew😭. I have yet gotten used to receiving Him, probably till then the tears won’t stop. May God bless us all!🙏🏼
That's wonderful.
I am so happy for you!
All it takes to be worthy to receive our Lord is to make a good confession, be a baptized Catholic an be in a state of grace.
No one is worthy, and our feeling worthy is not necessary. Praise God that you are reconnecting with this great gift of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Yes bring back the rails. More reverence needed.
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.*
This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo.
Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth".
St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
Our church brought back the rails like 12years ago.
Amen
Jorge Bergoglio said that Vat II is the Magesterium, but Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility, thus tlhe TLM is the proper mass due to the Council of Trent possessing infallibility.
Based upon this, if VII is the current Magesterium, then it does not possess infallibility.
Since the Magesterium has, at least up until Vat II possessed infallibility, then Vatican II would be a false Magesterium.
Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic.
[The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself, statements from the popes on the status of the council show it was not the intent to make new dogma, dogma cannot be created accidentaly, and claiming a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic because it was titled as such is just a positivist argument.] [H/t Christopher Marlowe.]
7th Session of the Council of Trent, changing the rites:
Canon 13. "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."
Ergo, Vat II is pastoral. Ergo Sum, given the following Lumen Gentium of Vat II, we are to follow the Council of Trent:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
The Magesterium and fallibility do not exist together simultaneously, but the Magesterium and infallibility do exist together simultaneously, thus the Council of Trent and the Magesterium exist together simultaneously.
@Jason This isn't my assumption, as, again, the following say this:
Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility.
Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic.
[The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself.
Agree with this priest wholeheartedly!!!! I really hope we begin having Communion on the tongue kneeling again
Amen!!! 👑+✝️+🔥=❤
As much as I adore Fr. Mark's Holy Spirit-filled insight, what he "missed" here, however, is to ask - WHO do we trust?! God or man?! Obviously, many Clergy and laypeople are listening and obeying man.
How can anyone think they could possibly get a virus "of any kind", by receiving on the tongue!! NO hand will EVER be clean enough .. and it leaves way too much room for abuse.
So, only on the tongue and, yes, altar rails returned, so we are "dropped to our knees".
When the church closed down, over the past 2 years, they said to everyone (and without a word) 'we don't really truly believe!' We should have had MORE Masses said, rather than none, thereby leaving our churches (where God is fully present) empty.
It baffles my mind. Yet, as always, "follow the money". Govt paid Catholic. Churches and others to shut down. They obviously couldn't say no.
not everyone is able to kneel.
There are Catholic churches that have Communion on tongue. If that's what one desires as a Catholic more often than not they can find a church that does so.
Pray the Rosary everyday for those souls who can not pray for themselves
Thank you for that reminder Patrick.
about 2 months ago i felt a deep profound feeling that took over my body where i couldnt move at the moment of the consecration of the holy eucharist i began to cry uncontrollably i felt the holy spirit presence and when i walked to recieve it i fell to my knees and opened my mouth i sobbed uncontrollably and i am thankful the priest did not deny me the holy eucharist on the tongue when i got back to my seat i fell to my knees and cried sobbed till my face touched the floor at that moment i made a promise to the lord that i will never recieve him in my hands only by mouth and on my knees for he is truly present in the holy eucharist for the past year i had doubts of the sacrement of the holy eucharist and believing that jesus was present there but i truly wanted to believe and i thank the lord for opening my heart and eyes for i will never see it any other way but in true humbleness and in faith for the lord is present in the holy eucharist and i asked the lord forgiveness for all the days i was ignorant and lukewarm in faith. Lord have mercy in those taking this so lightly and not seeing the severity of the matter how much pain and suffering puts you lord seeing your children do nothing. 🙏🏼😢
Thank you for sharing your story. ❤️ I will remember it.
I like your story.
Tku.
I wish to open my mouth when I get to Fr tomorrow
Beautiful testimony. I more times then not get teary eyed as the Eucharist is prepared, and when brand new (under a year old Catholic, praise God) I would sob before truly understanding our Lord was there, with us all. With work, I sometimes have to leave when they begin Adoration, and I cry walking out to the car. If I could, I'd sit there for hours with Him, but know He is with me no matter where I am. Still... God bless you.
@@museluvr amen! where ever you are adore him. when the church was closed because of the pandemic i listen to mass at home and i felt the holy spirit in my home i sobbed un able to move just feeling peace at the moment of the consegration it was such a peaceful feeling and i felt the understanding of God knowing how much i wanted to be present in church but couldnt be there. God sees our hearts and true intentions in really wanted to have a connection with God. seek and you will find peace in the lord wherever you are. peace be with you and God bless you always 🙏🏼
Thank you dear sister. You are blessed . Beautiful testimony
Lord help us to reverently receive you in.our hearts
Agree wholeheartedly with bringing back communion rails.
A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
B.) Protestabt heretics like Martin Luther then and today deny adherence to all Popes and Councils past in 1-9 and think only the pope now matters.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francisband/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc?
There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either.
Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic abd like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1 through 9 above.
C.) Like books in a bookshelf, the first Popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope and not be an anti-pope It is modernism and prorestabt heretics like Luther who say deny all previous popes and councils, and popes that agreed with these councils in 1-9 above. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even up to the 1st one, St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition, thus a diminishing of the papacy which would make the Orthodox ascendant. But there is neither a diminishing or increasing of the papacy.
But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension previoys Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition and the previous councils building upon councils before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back to Nicaea and ultimately to Sacred Scripture.
Heretics and schismatics like Luther though say to deny all popes and councils in 1-9.
@@raymack8767 again, Ray - you make no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma --> disciplines change -- receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue
@@angelicdoctor8016 You constantly say along the lines "you don't know anything" yet never prove step by step, with expounded sound, cogent arguments, what you claim you know but don't as many here have cleaned your clock and you run away.
You have said again and again to me "your move" so this is a game to you, sadly, so grow up, Sissy on one of these called you out saying you used inappropriate language and Ad Homs.
You can't even figure out that Sacred Scripture and Tradition from 30 AD until now are what the councils and popes relied upon that I referenced and when they say only certain people may touch sacred vessels, you can be excommunicated over certain things, etc, etc, it is forever. These popes then who worked with these councils and what they all established over the millenia spoke for God and it is forever. 1-9 all link together.
Trent, #9, anchored 1-9 in the New Testament citing "Apostolic Tradition" thus for you to challrnge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul in the NT. 1-9 are now irreversible.
I converted to Catholicism after reading the Church Fathers. I want to see that Church.
You will find the traditional Church.
Go to the traditional Latin Mass, for example, the SSPX.
I'd recommend FSSP or ICKSP as they are in full communion with Rome (unlike SSPX)
Yes!!!!! Agree Kevin!!
We have that Church today. It's the same Church.
@@lexodius When I read about the early Church Fathers and the Saints I read of people who are 100% trying to honor God with their heart, mind, soul and strength in everything they do. Today, we are too scared to approach the altar without a mask on.
The world is crumbling around us because everyone has "their own truth", while the Catholic Church has The Truth - His Truth and is not reaching out to proclaim this and defend this (except for rare priests and lay people).
The Church today should be gearing up and reaching out to the lost of the World who desperately need to know the Truth that comes from the Creator of Truth itself.
That is the Church I am longing for and looking for.
Receiving with devotion, reverence and piety. Fr. Goring said it so simply, so powerfully.
He literally said it timidly and like a woman. The entire video is him hedging
@@CatholicBossHogg Why are you here, Protestant Bryan?
@@angelicdoctor8016 big brain take
@@CatholicBossHogg Lumen Gentium 25 - get familiar with it
It isn’t up to fr. To decide if others are “receiving causally,”. By receiving in a way they have permission to receive in.
It’s not up to him.
I made Spiritual Communions, and then one day a priest and deacon told me, if I would wait till the end of the line, I could receive on the tongue. I am still doing that now. I read that to make a sacrifice out of love, for the Lord, was pleasing to the Lord. I longed for the Holy Eucharist and it seems that He was pleased, for His Providence granted me access to Him while kneeling and on the tongue, by a priest or deacon.
Praise the Lord in His Abundant Love and God bless you all.
The Last are the First in the Kingdom of Heaven
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your unequivocal answer about receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. At my parish in Wisconsin, I saw one man consistently kneel to receive Holy Communion on his tongue. He would wait to be the last one in line. I told him I wished I had his courage to do the same thing. He simply replied, "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, my Best Friend. How else could I receive Him?" God keep you so bold to speak the Truth!!!
....public virtue signaling is becoming more popular as a form of protest
@@cheechak481 So you know what is in that man's heart?
@@raymack8767 hey...bro....I do not know what is in the man's heart....but I do know that it is not for me to judge....that is between him and God.
@@cheechak481 So do you think he is virtue signaling?
Receive the blessed euchsrst on the tongue
I go to a very reverent Novus Ordo that never stopped giving Communion kneeling on the tongue if that’s how the communicant present themselves. I’m grateful for this. They also have confession for 1 hour prior to every mass and a priest is in the confessional during mass up to the presentation of the gifts. It’s awesome.
sounds good, and yet have a look at section 160 of St. Faustina's diary, where Our Lord celebrates being held in the hand - the practice of the early Church
As another person here, A Retrograde said:
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostles. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO.
To go against Trent makes one as heretical as Martin Luther.
@@raymack8767 obviously not -- Trent has no special status among ecumenical councils - the practice/norm of receiving in the hand did change, and is changed again today (to allow both practcices) -- no getting around the reality of the early Church practice of Eucharist in the hand -- look at how late your references are, to get a sense of what I mean
@@angelicdoctor8016 The Council of Trent said receiving on the tongue was bssed upon Apostolic Tradition. As has been said before:
St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)
Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9),
Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3).
This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” So since Ecumenical Councils, multiple Doctors of the Church, multiple popes, and traditions going back to at least 115 AD.
Too many popes, too much precedent, almost 2000 years of precedent, too many councils, too many synods, etc, etc, for ine council of Vatican II or one pope, Francis to override. And Pope Honorious' actions shows us one cannot do as one feels like doing.
To do so on this now would gut the church.
Apostolic Tradition, all those councils, popes, popes in concert with councils, synods, etc, all altogether must be obeyed. The weight of all the decisions, in concert, over millenia, sets all of this in stone so to say. It is therefore permanent and cannot be undone.
Honorius I found out the hard way you cannot do whatever you feel like. All, even popes, must obey all of the collective body and decisions before them or they can just do whatever they like, which Pope Honorious I found out, although posthumously, is false.
End of discussion. Obey all of then before you. They altogether override one Pope or one mere Vat 2 Council. They are in opposition to them before them as Vatican 2 itself basically said receiving in the hand was the exception to the rule not the rule itself but all before undoes Vat 2 anyway on this.
Therefore they, since they precede, take precedence. Obey them. Muted.
@@angelicdoctor8016 Btw, one last thing. You cannot isolate Trent by itself.
It, along with all before it, all together, with all the Popes, synods, councils, ecumenical councils, the Apostolic Tradition that Trent speaks of, etc, all together overrule, outweight, and overwhelm one mere council (Vat 2) and Pope Francis.
So, would you obey Pope Honorius I if he told you to agree with him on monothelitism?
We are fortunate to have Communion on the tongue in our parish, even during Covid. It is very important to me to receive Jesus on the tongue.
If you don't have the holy spirit by being supernaturally Born again from above it doesn't matter.....there is no one in Biblical times sitting around debating on received the communion ON THE TONGUE OR HAND .
It is such a Ridiculous argument......JUST FOOLISH
THIS IS WHY RCC IS FALSE DOCTRINE
@@TriciaRP read john 6 sister, and Jesus reffers to the bread and wine at the last supper as “my body” and the chalice of wine is reffered to as “the blood of my covenant” how can there be debate to this! Why would he not be speaking litterally, in john 6 many desiples left him and he did not claim that he was speaking metaphorically so they would stay. the Holy Eucharist being the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord is dogma. If someone gave you something and before they did you knew IT WAS JESUS would you not recieve it with the utmost care reverence respect submission and piety? People lose crumbs of the Holy Eucharist sometimes taking it in the hand, the church permits this but we as a church should lick the crumbs but my personal conviction is to recieve on the tounge or if nessicary to recieve in the hand and lick the crumbs. Also being “born again” the way reffered to now is not in line with the very early church and what the Holy Apostles taught, they taught that youre born again when you are baptised, the “born again that non Catholics and Orthodox refer to has only been around for around 100 years, very different then what was taught within 100 years of Our Lords incarnation. Something else that is missing from non Catholic and Orthodox Christians is confirmation, the apostles laid hands on newly baptised believers and said “recieve the Holy Spirit” is this not important? The problem with little to no tradition is that we stray off and accept our own understanding which often times is not in line with our Lords will for us, i left the Catholic church which i was born into and became an anabaptist, i was “born again” in the non Catholic/Orthodox sense i was anti-Catholic, i went to Eucharistic addoration i felt as if Jesus was looking down at me through the Eucharist illuminating my mistakes and inviting me to fix them my first thought was “oh no what have i done ive made a grave mistake” , i struggled with this for a week or so, my thought process for the entire week was, how can i recieve this how can i recieve, i didnt beleive in all the dogmas of the church. Maybe i can just accept all these dogmas blindly. But it dawned on me. If Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and showed me this it must be the real church as he would not show me this in a false church.
God bless sister :) much love.
@@TriciaRP - You are TROLLING and you are completely clueless about Catholicism. The Holy Spirit is certainly not acting through you when you carry on this way. Catholics ARE born again when we confirm our faith as teenagers or adults. This completes the Catholic infant Baptism We are baptized in water and the Spirit and born again. Protestants like you who bombard Catholic channels with your ignorant, evil slanders of Catholics and Catholicism would be better off learning about the Catholic faith from valid, Catholic sources. But of course, it is easier for you to be obnoxious and to remain in error and hubris. You would also be better off picking up your cross and living out your faith by performing some Christian, charitable works instead of coming to our "home" and condemning us with your errors. You are NO authority on Catholicism. If you are born again, consider get reborn again. (Now be gone before someone drops a house on you!) I will include you on my rosary intentions today, for you to receive humility and other necessary graces. I welcome prayers, as well.
@@sleppynoggin8808
YES INDEED! Amazing testimony! AMEN 🙏🏻 AMEN 🙏🏻 Happy and Blessed Pentecost Sunday!
❤️❤️❤️❤️🕯🕯🕯🕯❤️❤️❤️❤️
If I understood Fr Goring correctly, reverence and love as well as the disposition of the soul
and heart is what is most important when receiving the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
I, too, adore Fr. Mark's Holy Spirit-filled insight. What he "missed" here, however, is to ask - WHO do we trust?! God or man?! Obviously, many Clergy and laypeople are listening and obeying man.
How can anyone think they could possibly get a virus "of any kind", by receiving on the tongue!! NO hand will EVER be clean enough .. and it leaves way too much room for abuse.
So, only on the tongue and, yes, altar rails returned, so we are "dropped to our knees".
When the church closed down, over the past 2 years, they said to everyone (and without a word) 'we don't really truly believe!' We should have had MORE Masses said, rather than none, thereby leaving our churches (where God is fully present) empty.
It baffles my mind. Yet, as always, "follow the money". Govt paid Catholic. Churches and others to shut down. They obviously couldn't say no.
Amen 🙏🏻
And since we are creatures of both soul and body, our body's position should fully reflect our soul's disposition, yes?
I agree as far as this goes, there's more to the story as presented by Fr. Goring. It is possible also to receive our Lord with love and reference in the hands that he created and have been sacramentalized. Reverence was shown at the Last Supper with breaking bread in their hands/drinking wine and also much later until the Church decided this wasn't good enough for God. We (including me) need to be careful we don't judge others with this among other current issues confronting our church family. Some other religions are looking on with glee as we judge each other and try to turn the clock back to an idealized time. We can find over our 2000 plus history statements by many saints, priests, and laymen to lead us to one or another viewpoint so for me that is not the crux of the matter. What does the church teach after years of investigation and weighing all the facts? I'm tired of hearing opinions that tend to proselytize only one way as if they have the one and only answer - kneeling at an altar rail (that didn't exist in our earlier history and makes no concession for the disabled and elderly) and only taking the Eucharist on the tongue. Our church so far begs to differ. There is room in the Church's and God's heart for every Catholic (who has gone to confession to confess mortal sins and repeated venial sins) to receive Him.
Thank you. Here I though I could have some better standing before God because I received his body & blood kneeling on my tongue vs. in my hands.
When our church first reopened, parishioners were not allowed to receive on the tongue. Those who refrained from receiving on the hand did it out of love, honor, reverence for Jesus.
I don't condemn those who receive on the hand. Refraining from receiving the Eucharist was exceedingly difficult but it also became a blessing, endearing Him more to me than ever befor.
I’d like to reference Holy Scripture when St. John the Baptist said: One mightier than I is coming and I am not worthy to loosen the straps of His sandals. Now, if HE is not worthy to loosen the straps of Jesus’ sandals then who am I to handle His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist??? I receive Holy Communion only on my tongue.
Wendy Jesus just passed the bread and cup to them . They passed it around .John just meant Jesus was God, therefore greater in everyway.
Mary washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried it with her hair! I’m lost for words
The disciples were rebuked for treating to eucharistic like a meal instead of eating in their homes. Were they eating without their hands?
Wendy ~~
My young son 45 years ago or more wrote how he felt about the “new” way to receive our Lord.. he , at 7 years old , cited that exact same
@@wendymitchell8245 They are Apostles therefore their hands are consecrated and worthy to receive in the hand
I just can’t receive communion in the hand and the decision comes from my heart. Spiritual communion is a small sacrifice as being in the presence of Jesus is so healing. All through the pandemic I have found priests who understand this. I make no judgment on any of this so I feel it’s a very personal calling to follow my heart and this has brought me so close to the Lord.
As someone who loves both the TLM and Novus Ordo, I think it also depends on the person him/herself.
Receiving by hand does not equal being disrespectful, as long as the receiver acknowledges the sanctity of the Eucharist, and is reverend to Him. Do not forget, the Lord our Father sees all, and knows the reverence one feels in his heart.
What ever augument is put there is an easy sure answer which is, how did the girls at Garabandal recive the host from the blessed virgin? It was on the tongue for all to see and was even filmed in black and white!
Jesus is not amused in receiving communion in the hand. He demands priest to mouth and on bended knee. He made this clear a week before Easter this last year and was very angry. He is very powerful I couldn,t stop shaking for at least 6 to 8 hours from his anger.
I agree that it is not a sin to receive Eucharist in the hand. Our Lord demonstrated this at the Last Supper. He broke the Bread and declared this is His Body. He passed thr bread to the Apostles (,and all others gathered there, you can bet His beloved Mother was there). They ate the bread, picked up from their hands! And this continued in Early church...they did not have wafers as we have: they had actual bread shared and held in hands.
@@c.Ichthys He can break bread with his hands because he is the High Priest just like they do in mass. The priests are ordained by him to do so. As parishioners we,re not priests. We don,t have that authority.
@@gtibruce well, those girls were in ecstasy and we, who are not have not received visions and heavenly hosts.
People should be able to recieve either way
But ALWAYS with reverence and deep respect.
A priest's fingers are consecrated for a reason. Mine were not consecrated, so I'll continue to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
yeah but here in Mississauga they will not give it on the tongue because of the pandemic!
Please do.
John Paul ll:
"I can not be in favor of Communion in the hand, I can not recommend it!
Touching the Holy Creations is a privilege of the ordained ones" (Dominicae Cenae ll)
Rosary Scapular Mass...!!
the early Church received in the hand - facts as Vatican liturgical offices have affirmed
the Church was sent the Holy Ghost to Guide Her! then Her Councils...
@@edshakespeare9122 true - and the current pope approves of communion in the hand - guided by the Holy Spirit (Lumen Gentium 25 demands we give "religious assent of mind and will" to the current pope)
Nope! Father Gruner and his Apostolate tells "we are in the great Apostasy" written of in the Bible...
If a Pope errors it can be over turned by next Pope if done Correctly (Canon Laws) also that we are not obligated to follow Him that this Apostasy begins at the top!!...
his Apostolate is called the Fatima Center they can argue details with you about their teaching they're Traditional Mass, Magisterium...
Pope Benedict XVI only gave Communion on the tongue and Kneeling
@@edshakespeare9122 send this to Fr. Gruner and tell him to get in line -- this teaching is from ECUMENICAL COUNCIL teaching (the highest teaching authority in the Church):
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
The Fatima Angel came administered the Eucharist to children on their tongue kneeling after all the angel is a messenger from God .
I wanted to share. I was a mix of receiving on the tongue but sometimes on the hand. A few months ago just after receiving on the hand, I had an experience. No words were given to me but I experienced in my soul that it was not right. I now only receive on the tongue. No judgement from me on how others receive. I just believe God wants me to receive on the tongue.
I remember when they took the rails away and said many times why would they do this. I feel we need to kneel and receive on the tongue to give the reverence that our Lord deserves. Someone said no wander others who visit our Mass and see us lined up like in a cafeteria to get the Communion and not showing any sign of holiness so why would one that is not Catholic believe this little host is the Lord when we treat Him so casually.
I read a story somewhere where a Catholic was explaining to a Muslim our belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ/God at the Consecration or simply that the Eucharist is God. The Muslim replied something to the order of “if I thought that was God, I wouldn’t be behaving like I see most Catholics at their Churches!”. Very true!
@@Miken3307 wow so true !🙏
When were the rails taken away? I have seen rails in Mexico when visiting churches but I was not aware what they were for since I did my first comunión in the US. I don’t know if Mexico is still more traditional.
I have never touched the Holy Eucharist, never does the Lord even touch my teeth. Consumed whole and now I've found a church with a communion rail, on my knees! I love it!
@Tricia Perry please come away from your lies about the Sacred Body of Jesus
Turboautist
7:16 exemptions
How do you fulfill the command of the Lord to take and eat if you do not chew? In John 6:54 the Lord used words which are properly translated as "gnaw on." "The one who gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . ."
There's so many people who do not know that its more reverence to GOD our lord, if we receive the Holy comunión kneels donw and on the tongue , and also sometimes some people how receiving on the hand don't remember the they have the mask trying to put it on the mouth breaking the body of Jesus all in pieces and also they never look there hands for small particles of the holy comunión after.
Praise God that we have a priest now at our parish who constantly talks about the beauty, reverence of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. I changed about a year ago for all the reasons you offered. For years (since Vatican 2) I received in the hand. There just wasn't communication about either or.... you just received on the hand. I received First Holy Communion in 1953 and must have received on the tongue for the 10 years before Vat II but I don't have a strong recollection. We did have a communion rail and I recall it was meaningful. I love the Catholic Church under that carpet with all its beauty, history and uplifting spirituality!! Thanks Fr. Mark..... and Matt....
I don't feel comfortable receiving on my hand.
I did twice and it's the most uncomfortable moments I feel in my life .
If we're on Church , why fear the virus? God is powerful ❤️🙏
Don't doubt God
We were warned at Fatima to not follow the stars of heaven (meaning priests) dragged by the tail of the dragon (meaning serving the devil. We were also warned of the Great Apostasy in the Church beginning at the top of the Church. If the Bishop in link below had a commission from an enemy of the Church such as Satan himself or the head of free masons he could have not done a better job to destroy Catholic Faith in his country!
ruclips.net/video/oZvFH8QrGi0/видео.html
Its defined Dogma that the host is the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ! God has proven this.
www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Providence, which disposes all thing wisely and sweetly, has offered us book The Distribution of Communion on the hand, by Federico Bortoli, just after having celebrated the centenary of the Fatima apparitions. Before the apparition of the Virgin Mary, in the Spring of 1916, the Angel of Peace appeared to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, and said to them: “Do not be afraid, I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.” (...) In the Spring of 1916, at the third apparition of the Angel, the children realized that the Angel, who was always the same one, held in his left hand a chalice over which a host was suspended. (...) He gave the holy Host to Lucia, and the Blood of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, who remained on their knees, saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.” The Angel prostrated himself again on the ground, repeating the same prayer three times with Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.The Angel of Peace therefore shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. The prayer of reparation dictated by the Angel, unfortunately, is anything but obsolete. But what are the outrages that Jesus receives in the holy Host, for which we need to make reparation? In the first place, there are the outrages against the Sacrament itself: the horrible profanations, of which some ex-Satanist converts have reported and offer gruesome descriptions. Sacrilegious Communions, not received in the state of God’s grace, or not professing the Catholic faith (I refer to certain forms of the so-called “intercommunion”), are also outrages. Secondly, all that could prevent the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, especially the errors sown in the minds of the faithful so that they no longer believe in the Eucharist, is an outrage to Our Lord. The terrible profanations that take place in the so-called ‘black masses’ do not directly wound the One who in the Host is wronged, ending only in the accidents of bread and wine.Of course, Jesus suffers for the souls of those who profane Him, and for whom He shed the Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence cannot bring its potential effects into the souls of believers. And so we can understand that the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. This robbery attempt follows two tracks: the first is the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence.’ Many theologians persist in mocking or snubbing the term ‘transubstantiation’ despite the constant references of the Magisterium (…)Let us now look at how faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa. Receiving Communion on the hand undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments. On the contrary, attention to the smallest crumbs, care in purifying the sacred vessels, not touching the Host with sweaty hands, all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus, even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species: if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread, and if the dimensions of the fragments are accidents only of the bread, it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is! The substance is the same! It is Him! On the contrary, inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma. Little by little the thought may gradually prevail: “If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments, if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered, then it means that Jesus is not in them, or that He is ‘up to a certain point’.”The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful. (...) While the term ‘transubstantiation’ points us to the reality of presence, the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness. What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? By receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food. (…)
2. Since the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ Himself Who is true God and true Man we are bound by the First Commandment to reverence and adore Him. To do the opposite would be the sin of sacrilege.
3. Fatima is a divine apparition, the Angel instructed the children to receive Holy Communion kneeled and on the tongue. Are we more worthy than Angels to receive standing and on the hand?
4. Isn't it said ''Philippians 2:10-11 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So at the name Jesus we should bow but to receive Our Lord present in body, blood, soul and divinity we stand and receive him on the hands?
5. It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church.6. Is it not true that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest? (C.J.C. 845,1; Council of Trent 13 c.8, 22 c.1) St. Thomas tells us: Accordingly as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priests, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.” S.T. III, q. 82 a. 3.
6. And is it not true that the minister is responsible to God for the proper administration of the Sacraments that he personally administers? But some priests ask themselves, How can a priest be held responsible by God, if God (and the Church) does not also give to us priests the authority to dispense this Most Holy Sacrament according to God’s law and the universal law of the Church?”
7. And is not the universal law of the Latin Rite still that the Consecrated Host be placed on the tongue of the communicant as the document Memoriale Domini (1969) says:“...the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the Faithful. The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests, and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed.”
8. St Paul says ''Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.'' So if the law of God states that Holy Communion should not be given in the hand and not from so called ''extraordinary ministers'' which is a masonic term, Our Lord who is all knowing will not change his mind because of a virus. Communion on the tongue is the law of God and of the Church.
9. Our Lord also said ''Matthew 16:18 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.” After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.… So how can you think it is possible to get contaminated by a virus from receiving Holy Communion? Isn't that lack of faith? That's not really a sign of belief and trust.
Peace with you!
Queen Of Heaven and Earth's Special Militia
Amen! Stand firm in your faith!🙏🌹💖
To this priest: It is the law! Communion on the hand should not be allowed, and it has done harm to those who know this, and feel forced to receive in the hand. The priest should honor the holy way of receiving, on the tongue. Bring back the altar rails; every knee shall bend. I am so blessed to be able to drive an hour to attend Latin Mass, knell at the altar rail, and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Praise God and thanks be to God that my priest will only give Communion on the tongue at the altar rail, unless the person is unable to walk to the altar, then this holy priest takes Communion to the person and that person receives it on the tongue! We are so blessed!!! 🙏🙏🙏🌹🌹💒💒
I was brought up in a convent and was told that we should never touch the Ciborium,, nor the Chalice, nor the Altar. Receiving Holy Communion in the hand was unheard of at that time. So now, when I attend MAss and not able to receive Our Lord on the tongue, I ask the Lord to send my Guardian Angel to gather up the Holy Fragments that fall to the floor and bring them to me so that I can still receive my Lord on the tongue Sacramentally.
I would love to see communion rails in every parish. Also why can’t the new mass be done with the reverence the Latin mass is done with. That’s the thing that makes me cringe in some parishes is the total lack of reverence even by the priest. I’m not saying these folks are deliberately doing this but I have seen the new mass done very reverently with incense and some Latin mixed in with communion rails.
@Steven Johnston The Novus Ordo COULD be done reverently and it probably was in the beginning back in 1969. The problem is that once you start changing some things, the temptation to change everything starts to overwhelm. Modernism is a destructive virus. The host lives and carries on for a while but in the end, the infection causes severe sickness.
@@johnobeid67 I agree with you there. It breaks my heart every time I watch people go up for Communion and they treat it as if they were receiving a skittle or a piece of candy.
@@stevenj1214able I remember listening to a Taylor Marshall video about what he calls his “Grover moment”. He was going up to communion and was confronted by the sight of a “communion minister” who was standing up there giving out communion wearing a great big image of Grover (the cute and cuddly Sesame Street character) on her pullover. He knew from that moment that he was done with the New Mass.
@@johnobeid67 I refuse to go in the line where a Eucharist Minister is handing out communion......I just can't do it.
I'm a recent convert who was received into the church this past May. The real presence is one of the major things that drew me into the church. After my confirmation if just floored me as I began to see how many catholics don't seem to believe in the real presence. Then I went to a Latin Mass and man what a difference.
I attended 1 Latin mass since checking out the Church and then being baptized, so I have to agree with Fr Goring. The communion rail was more personal to me even when I couldn't take the Eucharist at that point, and bending a knee to my Lord and Savior is absolutely no problem for me. "Every knee will bow...." such a lovely thought. I started with receiving in the hand, but then came to my senses, and now only on the tongue. My hands ARE NOT consecrated to touch my Lord. It pains me to watch most these days take our Lord in hand. I wonder if they don't believe or are ignorant to the teaching and CC on this. But, now.. its tongue only.
I say yes to communion rails, kneeling, head scarf for the ladies - let’s bring out the red carpet! It is after all JESUS whom we receive. However, I also see the importance of obedience particularly when navigating these challenging times. Receiving in the hand has forced me to pay greater attention to the state of my soul......
💖🛐⚘Brother Its A Veil That I'm Wearing At,And Not Scarf At All💖🙏⚘Amen💖✝️⚘
Why are veils needed ? I don’t want to belong to a religion that treats women badly
@@fld9266 It's much like how a man wears a suit. Again, not needed but preferred, as we are in presence of Our Lord, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Pax Christi -
@@timfirst3536 I don’t think Jesus requires head coverings - he wants us there - men want head coverings .
If you all looked at the profile name, it is a lady who made this comment. Must be careful to not make rash judgements and assumptions. This was not a man making this comment. What is so wrong with wanting to wear a vail in Church? It has nothing to do with making women feel inferior to men.
Thanks, to the both of you, for easing my mind about receiving our Lord in my hands during this time of the pandemic. May God richly bless you both!
Yes indeed.Thx for posting this💌
"bowing of the knees, the answer to the world's problems", I agree with you Fr. Makes a LOT of difference in our personal life, family life and the nation's.
Praying is the answer
The end of the matter: A.) From King Baldwin:
1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
B.) Protestant, schismatic modernists are like Luther who denied adherence to all popes in concert with Clcouncils past. 1-9, above, which said no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, 380 AD, etc.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc?
There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, say except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished since Peter giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either.
Thus everyone must obey all councils from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic and like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1-9.
@@raymack8767 the problem Ray has is this: he makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue
@@angelicdoctor8016 You constantly say along the lines "you don't know anything" yet never prove step by step, with expounded sound, cogent arguments, what you claim you know but don't as many here have cleaned your clock and you run away.
You have said again and again to me "your move" so this is a game to you, sadly, so grow up, Sissy on one of these called you out saying you used inappropriate language and Ad Homs.
You can't even figure out that Sacred Scripture and Tradition from 30 AD until now are what the councils and popes relied upon that I referenced and when they say only certain people may touch sacred vessels, you can be excommunicated over certain things, etc, etc, it is forever. These popes then who worked with these councils and what they all established over the millenia spoke for God and it is forever. 1-9 all link together.
Trent, #9, anchored 1-9 in the New Testament citing "Apostolic Tradition" thus for you to challenge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul in the NT
To kneel before the Lord and to say "My Lord and My God" is an act of humility and adoration.
I love that Fr. Goring has a picture of Pope Benedict XVI behind him 😉💕
That’s because he the legitimate Pope.
Me Too!!! ❤️🙏🏻🙌🏻
@@CharlottePrattWilson That's not how papal succession works.
@@CharlottePrattWilson St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.*
This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo.
Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth".
St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
And whose picture he doesn't have :)
A nun once told me: we do more harm in our lives with our tongues than our hands. If we remembered this more often, we'd never receive on the tongue. Reverence isn't made by a posture or body part, but is within us. Receiving Communion is a procession involving the entire assembly. What is our posture in a procession?
I agree whole heartedly with 'rickreed' in the above comment. The tongue is more sinful than the hand, 'a restless evil, full of deadly poison' as St. James put it. It is not a holy vessel, and certainly not 'holier' than one's hand. I received communion on the tongue kneeling at the rail from my first communion in 1956, until post-novis ordo in the later 1960's, when it became commonplace to receive in the hand. Didn't the Lord say, 'Take and eat' ? No where in scripture where it says Jesus broke bread with those present, either before or after his Resurrection, does He say, 'don't touch' or 'stick out your tongue, I'll feed it to you'...He broke it and GAVE it, handing it to those with whom he shared His bread, His body. Yes, it needs to be received with great reverence, and can be even when received in the hand. I am honored, and feel very blessed that I can personally receive the Lord in my hand and willingly 'Take... and eat' as He commanded. The level of reverence, honor, respect, and love for our Lord is brought to the Lord's table by each recipient INTERNALLY and regardless of external, whether one genuflects, kneels at a rail, or bows and stands before the priest with hands outstretched. What is important is my internal/spiritual response to His offering of "THIS IS MY BODY", with my acceptance, assent , and thankfulness. AMEN !
What goes in the hand , still goes on the tongue. Did that nun think of that
Bishop Schneider in his booklet entitled in English ’It Is the Lord!’ said that in the days when Communion was received on the tongue, with a paten used to capture particles, that there were always particles on the paten. Now they fall on the floor?
Love Fr Gorings message!!! Lets make sure that we receive Our Lord. Run to Him! However we can receive Him. Because I cant be without Him. Yes!!! I am not going to debate how to receive Him. Respectfully speaking, I learned how I took mass for granted up until I couldn't receive Him because of pandemic. I say this to Thank God that I see who is first in my life. Finally I see💖By Gods Grace
Holy Communion used to be given in the hand as we can see here:
"In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen." Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315 - 386), Catechetical Lectures. Whether we receive the Holy Eucharist on our tongue or in our hand, what matters is HOW we receive it.
I'm so thankful to read this. I'm not able to kneel, would have to ask for help pestering others, but started feeling uncomfortable not receiving the Holy Eucharist on my tongue.
I can't get past the knowledge that when we receive on the hand particles of the Eucharist remain, not necessarily easily visible, and so those particles, which are Jesus, can wind up on our clothes, on the floor, etc. I don't want to knowingly subject Our Lord to that.
Aquinas actually addresses this. “If the change [in the consecrated elements] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.” A particle invisibly small seems to fit his definition here.
@@Snails888 not really because the particles aren't corrupted and their appearance isn't altered. They are just small.
@@jms1595 “if the bread be reduced to fine particles.” He specifically addresses tiny pieces.
@@Snails888 thanks for mentioning this important insight, Alex
@@Snails888 You commented about "a particle invisibly small". But there can be visible small particles, which are still visible to an eye if you look attentively.
Personally I prefer to receive on the tongue but as our bishop has asked us to receive on the hand I think that in obedience there is peace. Why do assume that everyone who receives on the hand is sinning! Or being disrespectful!
Did you watch the video? Neither of them said that receiving on the hand was a sin.
@@rushthezeppelin well sure, but go through the comments section and you will find many Catholics who are very judgmental on the topic
Yes is really sad to see comments from people shaming or calling disrespectful to people who receive the Eucharist in the hand. To disobey to your bishop is to disobey Christ. I would prefer to receive on tongue but since I want to obey, Jesus knows are hearts thats what matters
Lol if you think your bishop can give you orders that contradict what Rome teaches, you are a schismatic.
@@shane8037 wait, so are you saying “Rome” doesn’t permit communion in the hand?
I am old and remember the latin and pre Vatican II but am completely okay with things as they are now. Spent years being in the choir loft singing for the latin Mass before everyone was allowed to sing so i have seen it from both sides. And the changes have opened doors that are wonderful. Being an Eucharistic minister both at Mass and to the sick has taught me so much. Several times at Mass when i was a Eucharistic minister to each person i felt such a tremendous love for that person but i did not know most of the people. Later i realized that it was Christ Himself who loved his people and He allowed me to feel His love for His people. I so want to tell them of His great love for them. Again on receiving in the hand it gives me a few seconds of very intense adoration and on the way to reception there is a quick kiss before receiving. I am His spouse and only one place in all the canons is a woman called a spouse of Christ and that is Canon 604 ( or is it 605?).
Then you must be old enough to remember your First Holy Communion preparation, and being told how to receive on your tongue, because it was a mortal sin for any lay person to touch the consecrated Host.
And I bet you never even dared to walk into a Catholic Church unless you were wearing a hat or a scarfe.
I have two seriously arthritic knees, awaiting a knee replacement for the worst one. No way can I kneel but it does not mean that I'm not deeply reverential when receiving the Eucharist on the hand.
I aswell, Father was raised as you were! Receiving communion In the hand.
As a cradle Catholic, I felt it was ok & preferred it.
But, when Our Lord Christ, knocked me off my horse, while on my way to Damascus, causing me a serious injury and becoming bedridden & several horrific surgeries...turned out to be the greatest gift & blessing that I've ever received from Christ.
I then found my faith by finding EWTN & Mother Angelica 15 yrs ago. I developed a devotion to the Holy Rosary & Our Lady of Fatima.
Many tangible MIRACLES started occurring.
But, in my soul, I was shown that receiving communion in the hand was offensive. Why???
Because, the people in today's Mass hold hands during the Our Father prayer & then shaking hands with parishioners during the "sign of peace". Making our hands unclean. Then go and allow the most precious & Holy body of Christ on our unclean hands.
This is offensive to Our Lord, whom suffered so much for our unworthy souls. Saint Thomas Aquinas was extremely important to me and my family.
My beloved father's name sake was Thomas Aquinas. When my father passed away in 2010, and without realizing the actual day of my dad's funeral Mass & burial, literally was on the Feast Day of Thomas Aquinas.
Plz allow me to say one more thing...your unjustified comment concerning Catholics receiving communion on the tongue as a rebuke or as you mentioned. Or possibly "out of spite" is ridiculous and unfounded.
When folks receive on the tongue, the VERY FEW, I MIGHT ADD, they already realize that they're being watched. It's uncomfortable because some of those watching will scoff at those receiving on the tongue by saying...they're receiving on the tongue to show off their piety or say that they want attention.
Both claims being ridiculous and unfair.
Father Mark Goring, I commend you for your steadfast resolve to speak the truth.
Yes, i, and many of my friends, are longing for the Communion Rails..it would emphasize the reverence that has been lost over the years and needs to be returned.
reverence is a personal attitude not an object.
Please bring back the communion rails so that we can kneel and receive Our Lord Jesus the way we were taught. The right&only way to receive HIM!!!❤🙏 Viva Cristo Rey👆
VIVA!!!
I perfectly agree! Praised be Jesus....
St Bernadette's in Phoenix, which is a newer Church here, was built with Communion rails. Reverent Novus Ordo Mass
@@rutheiermann3476 St Anne in Gilbert just added the rails.
I find it odd that the clergy who supposedly believes in the miracle of transubstantiation, would be fearful of offering, said transubstantiated miracle, the actual body soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ of, on someone’s tongue, as opposed to their hands.
It is right to focus on proper devotion and disposition. Proper reception naturally follows.
I thank my God for my priest David Dutra from St.Bernards,Tracy,Ca Father David prefers to give communion by tongue because it is the right way to receive Our Lord Jesus. Receiving it by hand is difficult and has more of a chance of the person dropping it or just walking away with it. He said its sad when someone leaves it behind in a pew.
I asked mother Mary while meditating and praying, if it was ok to receive holy communion in the hand, I miraculously received an answer several hours later almost 3 Am ( time I somehow often awaken and pray the Devine Mercy ) . I heard a voice in my mind (in Italian) " con le lacrime " which means in English, with tears. What is strange, except for the rosary and only the rosary ( I recited the rosary in Italian since childhood ) my mind function in English. Also, when I woke up in the morning, in my mind, I was hearing the song Salve Regina. which ended on waking What was amazing for all those that have ringing in the ears, the song was at that frequency but in the purest form just beautiful Never heard anything like this before nor after. I'd say it came from up above to confirm the given answer...
Fellow Italian, I’m not understanding. What do you believe she answered?
do not listen womans and do not speak with them about important things
I recall once at a Cathedral during an Ordination, an elderly priest was disgusted when he saw I wished to receive on the tongue and he flung the Host with anger etc into my mouth. I did not feel hurt for myself but a tremendous sorrow that he forgot Who he had in his hands and mistreated. Poor Jesus. Sr. Carol
My two favorite RUclipsrs! Great video thank you for sharing!
St Tarcisius was the kid saint who let himself be killed rather than show The Blessed Sacrament he was carrying because he knew they would commit sacrilege. Blessed Imelda was young too but she died of ecstasy after receiving her first communion, she died of love, in perfect union with Christ! ❤️
What about the particles of Christ which are lost when everyone received Our Lord in the hand and are more concerned about their mask than any the mini fragments that contain the totally of Christ?
As another person here, A Retrograde said:
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostlic Tradition. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO.
One who goes against Trent becomes no better than Luther who went against Trent.
@@raymack8767Trent is based on the teaching of men not the word of God . You might as well follow Joseph Smith.
@@wendymitchell8245 The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not agree with your divisive comment.
The schismatic Martin Luther taught divisive things as well.
@@wendymitchell8245 Trent is in agreement with others all the back to 115 AD at the very least. If teachings of men entered in that early, then will you teach us truth?
@@wendymitchell8245 Joseph Smith is in a long line of schismatic heretics like (a) Luther who said the church in his time was wrong.
Then others (b) after him said he was wrong. Then otherrs (c) said b were wrong, and all the way down to you.
You can't go from Luther until now for the truth. You have to go back to the beginning then down to Trent. And if they in AD 115 were alreadty off the rails, and it's anybody's call how to interoret the scriptures, then you make every person into their own pastor. Good going atomizing the gospel even further.
I haven't received Holy Communion since July 2020, my local Churches no long allow the Eucharist on the tongue. I cannot bring myself to receive Jesus on the hand until this ban is lifted, my heart and conscience tells me it is desecrating the Host I cannot bring myself to receive on the hand. I'll keep praying for the day I cannot receive Our Blessed Lord again 🙏🙏
Bishop Schneider has mentioned that in early church, people did receive on the hand but they had a clean cloth put over the cupped hands and the comunicant then raised the hand to the mouth in order to partake. So the comunicant did not touch the Host directly with his hand or handle it with the fingers. That could be an acceptable option.
Jesus purifies us in this suffering 🙏
@The T Have you looked online to see if other churches in driving distance allow for it? Have you talked to your priest about the subject?
That's a demonic temptation to scrupulousness. I knew an elderly and very devout man whose sense of his own sin, even directly after confession, was so strong that he felt he 'shouldn't' receive communion at Mass. He was going to confession but not communicating afterward or within a day or two feeling unworthy and not taking communion. I told him he was being tempted away from Christ, making himself spiritually weaker by refusing to accept the forgiveness we get in Mass and he was simply getting himself in deeper in this cycle of sin and confession but not accepting God's mercy and the strength of the Eucharist. He needed to go MORE often, not less. Look, who is really, REALLY happy if a person in a state of grace talks himself into never receiving the grace and power of holy Communion? God? Or Satan? Whom are you PLEASING by refusing communion based on your FEELINGS, not on God's teaching that if you eat his body and drink his blood he will abide in you? Satan is giving you these scruples and he is delighted that you keep away from the body of Christ: unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you, says the Lord. Your FEELING about it is a temptation, not the truth.
I always receive the Holy Eucharist in my tongue and if the communion rails is not available, I always kneel with my right knee bent. I always feel so humbled and blessed to receive Jesus in this way. Something about the physical gesture mimics my heart. I will always do this as long as possible. During the pandemic, I had to receive it in the hands but I always kneel. I love this communion with our Lord. God bless!
I once received the Host in the hand. After I placed It in my tongue, I noticed a small crumb lodged between my ring and finger. As I was raising my hand to lick it, the crumb was blown away. I was horrified. I looked for but couldn't find it. I told the priest about it after Mass and he said he will look for it. I have been extremely careful after that.
Our tongue is unworthy of Him, every part of us is unworthy of Him but his grace allows us to receive Him. Whether our hand or our tongue it's what we acknowledge deep inside that counts.
I believe your wrong and lovingly here's why. If the Angel Gabriel kneeled before our blessed mother a creature. We bring fallen sinners most definitely need to kneel while receiving out blessed Lord. God bless
@@keig6161 I don't think it's stated in the bible that angels kneeled before her, but I would not be surprised but regardless of the fact. It should not be made mandatory because worship comes from the heart not by kneeling nor standing. We kneel before Mary but we do not worship, we stand before Jesus yet we worship. Again it's the heart of the person and if your heart makes you feel like kneeling great, but it's not something that has to be done inorder to feel more reverant in receiving Jesus.
@@daninspiration4064 duuuuuude finally! I have always thought this but I rarely see others who think so too. God isn’t going to judge you at the end and say “you knelt to receive the Eucharist so you’re going to heaven, but you didn’t so you’re not” . It is definitely a right to receive on the tongue and kneeling but condemning others for not is not.
@ShariaFreeUK I do respect the Eucharist when taken by hand. I protect it by licking the palm of my hand after I put it into my mouth. I am just obedient to what the church is telling us to do. I have to disagree with your point and will continue to receive by hand unless the church hands a decree that says we need to go back to communion in mouth only.
@ShariaFreeUK I never said you can't receive it on tongue but I just disagree that it must be recieved by tongue. And I do not touch anyone or anything after I lick my hand. I santize right away and afterwards I go into the restroom to wash my hands. Point is that it should be ok for a person to receieve by tongue or hand. Those that decided to take it to their car or do otherwise with it is the sin of their own.
We are encouraged to form and act by conscience. My conscience leads me to only receive our Lord on the tongue. It isn’t pride, it’s a double mortification. Not only am I unable to receive in my local parish, and I do desperately need this sacrament, I am judged (or seen as judging!) by my priest and other parishioners . I think it would be very few people acting out of pride. :( This is a way for this practice to be permanently outlawed. We actually need to speak up, and protest with word and deed, otherwise this Lutherfarian custom will prevail to the further destruction of reverence and faith. We are encouraged to follow our conscience? Not in this matter!
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
B.) Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful.
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Like books in a bookshelf, the first book would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book to the right of it would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. It is modernism that says one only obeys the current pope. There is either a diminishing or an increasing of the papacy or there isn't to both. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even the 1st one, including St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition along with Sacred Scripture.
But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition, previous councils building upon it, before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back to Sacred Scripture.
C.) Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francisband/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc?
There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either.
Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea and all popes in agreement throughout history and against Francis must be obeyed.
@@raymack8767 Confused Ray is spreading false information. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
As a lay person, borned after 2nd Vatican Council, to me I bow with reverence before receiving by hand. Answering Amen with conviction to the proclaimation, The Body of Christ is essential. Showing reverence, praying, praising, worshipping Jesus internally is utmost important.
I agree we must be reverent when receiving Our Lord but receiving our Lord on the hand causes Eucharistic particles to fall on the ground, etc. Every single particle of the Holy Eucharist is God. JMJ
Does the priest himself not release these particles too then?I am willing to go back to priest only, with a patten while I kneel at a rail. I can’t get down to the floor and back up at this age and a rail helps tremendously. Our church has the one priest and three Eucharistic Ministers who are mostly women. If we’re going clear back to St. Cyril, wouldn’t it need to be the priest only? No women? Our altar servers do not stand and offer the patten. I fear more of dropping the Eucharist off my tongue than if I put it in my mouth myself. My heart lights up within me after I receive my Lord! I don’t think that after 60 years of receiving Him, He makes me feel any different when I receive on the tongue in a church 45 miles away or in my hand at my local church. I have recently lectures on why I should receive on the tongue and almost feel bullied by the lecture and pressure to receive as they think I’m being unholy. I don’t think Jesus sees anything wrong with what I’m doing. He loves what’s in my heart.♥️
“for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.””
Romans 14:11
I came back to the Church in Aug 2020, having been gone for 20 years. I would have been devastated to be told that I shouldn’t receive Our Lord on the hand. The primary reason of my return was a desire to receive the Eucharist
So, is receiving the Eucharist on the tongue not receiving?
" I would have been devastated to be told that I shouldn’t receive Our Lord on the hand." Why would you be opposed to reception on the tongue?
I agree I receive on Tongue but sometimes priest don’t allow . But I would never not receive Jesus if they would not let me receive on my tongue because I love him so much I need him in my soul ❤️
2 years ago, I have found a traditional Latin church that doesn't permit parishioners to receive the Holy sacrament in the hand. We bow down, make a sign of the Cross and kneel in the front rails hands covered by white linen,.Women are in veils and dressed decently . The Mass is so solemn, It's so sacred and beautiful veneration. The first time I attended TLM, I sobbed so much from so much guilt that the majority of my life I have done sacrileges act to the body of our Lord. Whenever I see the Holy Eucharist being received by hands I can't help but cry for the Lclrd Our Savior , Jesus Christ.
Hello Fr. Mark. A worthy guest of pints with Aquinas.
Great insights from both of you.
Two Bible passages That come to mind are:
Mt 18,6.... If the Bishops are misleading the laity on receiving the Eucharist on the hand because of the pandemic, their judgement is already passed.
Eze 3,19....
I was convicted a few ago. Minor specs of the Holy Eucharist gets scattered when given in the hand which made me feel guilty about receiving on the hand.
When we are forced out of obedience to receive in the hand and no other choice, which has happened to me a couple of times when traveling - I feel anguish and immediately offer up my suffering of the desire to receive Him on the tongue silently.
Maria Simma, the Catholic Mystic who was visited by holy souls from purgatory for over five decades says she was told by the holy souls that the American bishops would remain in purgatory until the the American church went back to receiving on the tongue.
I was a Eucharistic minister in San Francisco and when I initially move to the Houston area, I decided not to pursue becoming a EMHC minister in my local diocese because of the receive in the hand . However, ultimately I felt God was calling me to once again serve. I sensed The Lord was telling me that I was not personally culpable because the Bishops had approved receiving in the hand.
So many thousand if not millions of particles are left behind when receiving in the hand. I have also very reverently licked my palm after receiving. No man told me to do this. The Holy Spirit has urged me to receive on the tongue
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.*
4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”*
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.*
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradition".*
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. And the protestant, schismatic modernists in the CC carry on his work today.
1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, which say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc.... All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone that by citing "Apostolic Tradition" anchors them in the New Testament making it all irreversible, forever.
C.) Finally, the past popes and councils worked together in agreement on 1-9 I listed above, and popes before and after them agreed with them. Once they declared certain actions involved with the Eucharist service to be sin, sacrilege, mortal sin, excommunicable offenses, and so on, it was sin. Period. Something can't be sin one year and not sin the next.
The Council of Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, thus for people now to make the things said in 1-9 to not be sin, mortal sin, etc, (what was declared in 1-9 to be sin) would be akin to saying that what St. Peter and St. Paul said were sin are no longer sin. Thus for people now to say what 1-9 declared to be sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people saying it wasn't. You can't.
Given The Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it links it all back to the saints of Sacred Scripture thus making 1-9 irrevocable. Since the Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it linked it back to the NT, anchoring it there. Sin is sin. This isn't relativistic. Truth doesn't change. To challenge 1-9, with Trent as a capstone linking it all together back to the New Testament, would be akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul.
@@raymack8767 So here it is, uneducated Ray. The problem is -- the Universal Church, under Francis, rejects Ray's thesis -- end of story, really. Ray is basically a Protestant.
My dad told me he always licks his palm discreetly when he returns to his seat after recieving on the hand.
Thank you for this video.
What breaks my heart is that what should be a rare rare exception has become the regular thing and now we see the fruits of this...there’s hardly any Catholics that truly believe that Jesus is truly substancially present in the Holy Eucharist.
I agree that we need to return to receiving Jesus in Holy Communion with deepest reverance, on our knees and on the tongue.
This should be the norm and not the other way around.
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
🙏🏻🕊🔥❤️🔥🕊🙏🏻
A.) From King Baldwin:
1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand.
4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
B.) Like books in a bookshelf, the first Popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. It is modernism that says one only obeys the current pope. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even the 1st one, including St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition, thus an increasing of the papacy.
But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition and the previous councils building upon councils before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back Nicaea and ultimately to Sacred Scripture.
C.) Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc?
There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either.
Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea and all popes in agreement and against Francis must be obeyed.
@@raymack8767 You lack understanding, Ray -- you should really stop spreading misinformation. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
Okay, during THE pandemic bishops want Holy Communion to be given in the hand. What was their reasoning PRIOR to THE pandemic? The bishops have lost their spiritual compass, blind guides! 🌹
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.*
4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”*
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.*
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Traditon".*
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past.
1-9, above say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone. By Trent citing "Apostolic Tradition" it anchors 1-9 in the New Testament making it irreversible forever. To challenge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul.
C.) Sacred Scripture and Tradition work hand in hand from 30AD until now and forever. Period.
The past popes and councils worked together in agreement on 1-9 I listed above, and popes before and after them agreed with them.
Once they declared certain actions involved with the Eucharist service to be sin, sacrilege, mortal sin, excommunicable offenses, and so on, and Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, then for people now to make them not sin, mortal sin, etc, (what was declared in 1-9 to be sin) would be akin to saying that what St. Peter and St. Paul said were sin are no longer sin.
Thus for people now to say what 1-9 declared to br sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people now saying it wasn't or isnt. You can't.
Given The Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it links it back to the saints of Sacred Scripture. Sin is sin. This isn't relativistic. Truth doesn't change.
@@raymack8767 LIsten to MIchael's explanation to you! Open your ears. To quote Michael, all of these are under sacramental discipline. Sacramental discipline is always subject to the living magisterium.
You don't seem to understand how that is classified under canon law. Giving more quotations, and as far as the council of Tent is concerned you didn't provide the quotations, doesn't change that fact.
Your premises are faulty leading to a faulty conclusion. The magisteirum DOES have this authority and they have acted on it.
For you to deny that is choosing an ideology over reality. Either that or you have to reach a sedevcantes conclusion which is condemned under the First Vatican Council. When appealing to heresy is your only fall back position, its time to re-examine your premises.
@@angelicdoctor8016 On another thread you presumed to speak for Christ, blasphemer, You have torpedoed your claim to being relevant now and having any useful input.
Time and again when others, like myself, have A.) sound, cogent retorts to your B.) lack of step by step taking thing all the way back through C.) Sacred Tradition and D.) Sacred Scripture to the E.) beginning and link it forward to the F.) Council of Trent, with all the G.) popes during this council and H.) before and after, plus the I.) Councils before it and J.) popes before and after Trent all in agreement with C through I, you then respond with "I know, you don't" - your continued nothing burger response. And add to it what Sissy on here said about your inappropriate language and Ad Homs usage and its clear you need to grow up.
And given C through J, in contrast with your nothing burger replies, crack a book open for once and learn something instead of running off at the mouth all the time. Your pride, arrogance, and projecting are showing and it's past old, schismstic protestant modernist. And quit propping up Pope Pachamam, too, who leavened the whole lump by inviting Pachamama devotees and letting them play the fool on sacred ground. But no doubt you rejoiced in that, so I'm wondering if you are a closet pagan. Sigh.
And this issue has never been addressed during this supposed Eucharistic Revival....I fell for this for the longest time...I am 64...so I very well remember Altar Rails (not addressed) and kneeling before..I am with Fr Goring, after reading more about the Eucharist...I started kneeling and receiving on the tongue again...As a Knight we need to Defend the Holy Catholic Church...and that means bowing before our Lord and Saviour when I receive him weekly... It just makes so much sense. I did wrestle with the Pride thing, but thought about it long and hard and now am very comfortable with my decision. Our Priest is from Nigeria and is spectacular! He put a Kneeler out for people who wish to receive on the tongue. As a Knight of Columbus I took my Degree's seriously and do my best to live them. Receiving on the tongue is one way I can do that.
My parish follows the bishop’s COVID guide lines recommending in the hand, but we are allowed on the tongue, because you cannot be refused according to Church rules. I receive kneeling and on the tongue for reverence.
We have to stay in our pews, the priest and deacon come to us.
Back when I was an altar server, I would regularly see sizable Pieces of the Blessed Sacrament on the paten that I had been holding during Communion. Mind you, those Fragments were just what had fallen from the ciborium on the way to the person’s hands or tongue.
When receiving on the tongue, any Pieces that fall are caught by the paten, and the Host is consumed without any being lost. However, after the Host is placed in someone’s hands, there are additional pieces that fall off and will be lost. If the thought of a Host falling onto the floor is bothersome to us, I would ask why a Fragment of that same Host is not also a cause for concern.
Thank you!
There is a really easy fix to that, stop buying cheap, poorly made hosts.
the early Church received in the hand - the earliest tradition - don't get stuck in the medieval Church
@Angelic Doctor Thank you for your advice/concern and for sharing your understanding of this matter. Just to clarify, my desire for receiving on the tongue is not grounded on adherence to medieval church practices. Rather, it is based upon a desire to avoid any loss of the Blessed Sacrament (as I originally wrote). In addition, I have realized it helps dispose me to receiving Our Lord with more reverence, and (if permitted) the act of kneeling helps to remind me of my littleness before Him.
@@macncheese0013 Reverence is a subjective expression. One cannot draw an objective universal from a subjective premise.
Wow Father Mark, it is really good to hear you acknowledge the importance of how we receive. It’s a prayer answered
Fr Mark, I appreciate your understanding on this matter. As we were raised through the transition from the Latin Mass to novus ordo, we were taught how to take Holy Communion on the hand. Then the sanctuaries were redesigned, the altar rails removed, as you said.. Now I am old and unable to kneel without a 4-point manipulation of my body, and getting to my feet is even harder - it is like a giraffe getting to its feet after a drink. I take the host on my hand very aware of what I am doing, I always adore it and welcome Jesus reverently before placing the blessed host on my own tongue. Wash my hands before attending Mass. I am sure not everyone does this, though they ought to, but in a way it is a beautiful little step to acknowledging what we are doing, who it is that we place in our bodies to support us through the day and night. So perhaps a little more instruction, as a reminder of what we do, from the pulpit, more careful instruction of new communicants, is a good idea, too. Look up and acknowledge this Body of Christ when I say "Amen", carefully lift it and place it in my mouth as something so precious, not a handful of nuts off a dish.
And here in Australia it is a rare thing for people to receive Communion on the tongue. Our hands are a tactile and very integral part of our bodies. And the host ends up in our dirty mouths and digestive systems anyway. The raging debate about novus order vs Traditional Mass has not really taken off here, SSPX members are few and far between - thank the Lord, I say, because they are causing huge division in our Church. Changes were made to our Liturgy from Rome, we have faithfully followed those changes as promoted, supposed to advance the Faith in our Church - if this has been erroneous, that is another discussion to be had, and not from the self-righteous but from the top, please. Surrounded by conspiracy theories, contention, everywhere, we really do not need to be made to feel guilty for following the teaching of the Church as sent out from Rome in the second half of last century.
SO PLEASE DO NOT THROW THIS THING AMONG THE FAITHFUL AND ACCUSE US OF BEING SINFUL THERE ARE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS IN THE US WHO TELL US IT IS A MORTAL SIN!
I love the Eucharist, attend Mass every day or as frequently as possible, for this intimate meeting with our Lord.. Please don't push your high and mighty North American values on we who live in lesser zones under Bishops who do not seem to make issue about this.. Anybody who receives a host on his tongue is easily able to remove it from his mouth should he intend to desecrate it, so this does not necessarily protect the host from malign minds. My issue is with those distributing Communion, which is a task often carried out irreverently, without any acknowledgement that this is a sacred object being given to us. If the Priest or Lay Minister plonks the host on our outstretched hands as if he were dealing a pack of cards, that is so insulting, and in my mind demands to be called out by we devout communicants.
And remember that at that sacred Last Supper, in instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus did not ask his apostles to present themselves to him and put out their tongues to receive his special gift to them. "Take this and eat" - the way human beings would do? Probably pass it around by hand, and share. He is worthy of reverence and expects respect and awe from us, but knows well our human condition - which is what it is really all about - His incarnation, His life among us, and ultimately His sacrifice, both at this Table and on the Cross, and which actually makes this special Eucharist all the more truly amazing.
Please Father Goring, some situations are "extreme", "extraordinary", or "unusual". When this becomes a loophole by which the exceptional rarity becomes the standard, then it is by it's nature being abused.
A young lady can, in extreme conditions, carry a child safely to term very young. This however SHOULD NOT become the standard.
Certain musical instruments can be used for the mass only in unusual or extreme situations, yet here we see every manner of exception made against what the rule obviously intended.
Just because one CAN, it does not follow that one SHOULD.
Amen brother well put.
Well put indeed.
False analogy. The early Church practiced reception of Eucharist in the hand.
@@angelicdoctor8016, OH, my Modernist, phenomenological friend returns!!! Delightful!
Hi, I hope that you are doing well and have decided to open yourself to both Truth and beauty!
What is the issue today?
The V2 direction on the mass had communion in the hand as an extraordinary option in its guidance. Period.
In the early Church, they also gave confession before crowds.
The point, and coincidentally the valid analogy, is that whereas one has often been exceptionally able to receive in the hand, it is contrary to our Church disciplines and has resulted in a cavalier attitude toward the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The polls bear this out to a painful degree.
Disciplines develop in light of greater specificity and refinement in existing doctrine and dogmas.
What was never doubted in those days of the Church you cited was Christ's true presence. It is widely available in the earliest documents.
Only today, in your Modernist age of infidelity and philosophical nominalism, is there such a problem as needs the Truth of the true presence to be reinforced in practice.
Even the arch-heretic Luther did not deny that Christ was in the Eucharist.
So in times when people undervalue the divinity present in the Eucharist, you would reinforce their indolence with picking it up like chips out of their hands?
Do you have kids?
When you teach your kids, some things may be acceptable when their understanding and intent are correct. If they begin to take your magnanimity for granted, you have to reassert the rules which will more properly teach them what is right.
This is why proper humility and penitence before God should be observed in the sacraments.
This means reception on the tongue, on ones' knees.
The CDW has suggested that moving back to kneeling reception on the tongue is more fitting with the understanding of the true presence.
The faith was growing and spreading BEFORE the adoption of the Nouvelle Theologie in the 2nd half of the 20th century.
@@kingbaldwiniv5409 early Church received in the hand - earliest tradition
I die a little everytime I take communion on hand. I come from Poland and almost my entire life recieving communion on tongue and kneeling was norm. I even remember communion rails times. I live in UK atm and I am yet to see somebody take communion as Im used to. Can't wait for this pandemic to end.
I agree
That's why I haven't been able to receive Holy Communion for months
I’m from Poland as well and it saddens me that people treat the Eucharist very superficially. The priests no longer use the paten. People come to mass in sneakers and sweatpants . There is no respect for anything. “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the HANDS of men, and they will kill Him “
@@czeneke "Catholics" nowadays don't even believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ. Where I live, lots of people take communion without fasting and even without confessing grave sins. I guess that's the product of having the new liturgy designed by protestants...
@@patriciagrenier9082 I will receive on the tongue, on my knees
I'm a member of what I guess you all call a Novus Ordo Catholic Church. I was baptized/confirmed in 2016 and also serve there as a sacristan and very occasionally as an extraordinary Eucharistic minister (which I am deeply uncomfortable with but have done twice when there was a need). Over the past couple years I've developed a real attraction to the greater reverence in the traditional Latin Mass. Especially Communion Rails. I would much prefer to receive kneeling at the rail on the tongue and a return to the deeper reverence in the Latin Mass.
Well said! Converts have such fresh eyes and pure hearts. May God bless you and may your faith deepen in this time of great tribulation.
Well spoken ., it is much better and reverent to receive kneeling and on the Tounge . I myself would keep away From those who promote. standing and on the hands Especially if it s a NOVUS ORDO mass as. I believe that its SACRILEGIOUS. to touch the Eucharist. I have now COMMITTED my self to SUNDAY WORSHIP at the SSPX . it is TRUELY a Blessing .!!
I am a convert. About 7 years ago, I was confirmed after going through RCIA twice. Not once did I see a person take the host on their tongue. In fact, I never heard it mentioned. So when I started to hear people talk about this (mostly on the Vortex) I was confused. We still take Jesus in our hands, then to the mouth. I'm just grateful we get Jesus at all these days. I love it when the server rings the bells at the moment of consecration because at that instant, I believe God, in the person of the Holy Spirit has entered the church and performed a true miracle. I can physically FEEL spirits around us all. Maybe angels are there too. I like to think so.
Welcome to the Church, Andy!
It's a known fact that converts are frequently better catechised than many cradle Catholics, and I can see that you are devout and love your new home.
I'm not familiar with the RCIA, but got my Catholic education way back prior to Vatican II, so the Latin Mass was part of my life.
Children were taught that it would be a serious sin for a lay person to touch the Sacred Host, and the mere idea of receiving Holy Communion in your hand was just unheard of.
I'll admit that I went along with the "hand" thing, just to be like everyone else, but did not feel comfortable, and now, older and wiser, I regret it. It doesn't bother me at all now to be the "different" one in church!
I'm not trying to influence you, just to give a historical background.
However, I do encourage you to attention a Latin Mass if you get the opportunity.
@@alhilford2345 Now, see, that makes total sense. Nobody has explained to me that we were once taught that a lay person touching the Host was considered a sin. Wonder why the Church changed their minds on that one?
@@alhilford2345 This whole topic really got me thinking so I went to the Catechism and found this..."On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people's unique, PRIESTLY vocation:...The baptized by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are CONSECRATED to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood. page 783. In my mind this means that I am holy, even my hands, so there is no problem with holding Jesus in my hands. And having come from a charismatic background, this is repeating what I was taught there, although using different words. The meaning is the same. And thank you for your kind reply to my first post.
@@alhilford2345 the historical background, is that everyone received communion on their hands ... just as Jesus to the deciples. Early, in the Church people would have the Eucharist in their homes and when travelling they would carry the Eucharist in their satchel. Only when there were lots of Priests did this change. So many people don't know the history of our Church.
I just do not understand why us Catholics get lost in technicalities; we know that under certain circumstances the church can authorize to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist in the hand. I also rather receive the Eucharist on the mouth, but we are in the middle of a very infectious pandemic and if the church decrees that this is a time to receive it in the hands so be it. Our heavenly father sees what is in our heart (our soul) and as long as you take the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with veneration and understanding God will judge us based on that. We are living in a time when some Catholics are behaving like the pharisees and the sadducees judging others based on the external showing and an overemphasizing stress on rules, remember Matthew 15:18-20: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone”.
Well said. I receive in the hand all the time, and I bring myself to the Lord with humility and love.
Yeah, why stress the small stuff like the body of creator of the universe... look there is a coof that almost no one under 80 dies from that is what is important.
@@CatholicBossHogg you know that body came as a helpless baby, touched lepers, and finally suffered and died naked with criminals. Jesus is nothing if not humble. I think he can handle your hand.
@@GratiaPrima_ and yet what did she say to Mary outside the tomb?
@@CatholicBossHogg He told her to go tell the disciples...
If you allow in the hand- that's how the host gets stolen. I watched in horror as a man took it and ran down the aisle smiling. He was a bit crazy. I cried and went to the priest after mass. The deacon said, we just can't always see things happening-
No, it is no sin! If you have awe, love, humility and genuine faith - than you are in a good condition. Jesus sees the heart, and he, who died for us and beared our sins, have no problem, when we make communion with our hands! I am very sure for that!
So, are humans completely spiritual beings?
I get cold sores on my lips. In the most contagious stage they are not visible to an outsider. To deter the spread of cold sores to another, I am pleased to receive the Eucharist in my hands. Before, I would refuse Communion when I felt one coming on. For health reasons I am happy I can receive in the hands.
I left my church because they gave me a bad time of receiving on the tongue so I went to the traditional Latin mass. I felt terrible
Why do you feel terrible??
Janice...:
You were fortunate to find a Latin Mass church.
Good for you!
Priests traditionally only touch the host with
1) the tips of their first finger and thumb (canonical digits),
2) hold the fingers together when not handling a host
3) AND purify their fingers with wine and water after distributing Holy Communion.
Even if particles are not visible they are very often felt as a little "grit".
Who among the laity, when receiving in the hand, are purifying their palms and fingers like the priest purifies his canonical digits?
A more spiritual reason...Who receives food in their mouth by another person?
1) Babies (we can't do anything without Christ)
2) The infirm (we are sick and need to be fed) and
3) Spouses at their wedding reception (the Church is the Bride of Christ)
Some people incorrectly believe that the pope needs to speak with infallibility to be obeyed. Ecumenical Council teaching rejects this idea as we see below. Infallibility is a charism reserved for the needed response of supernatural faith, but much of Church teaching only requires the assent of reason. THE POPE is OK with us receiving Eucharist in the hand - bottom line - it's sinful to call "evil" what the pope says is "good". Matt was clear - the Church permits it and we in obedience accept that teaching - "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." Lumen Gentium 25
@@angelicdoctor8016 Communion in the hand is not permitted in the Traditional Latin Mass.
All of which are not required, and are unnecessary.
All of your arguments for the second part are emotional arguments not theological ones.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. Bam, just made it theological.
But seriously, I said spiritual, meaning we can grow spiritually by exercising the humility needed to be fed by another (the priest in Persona Christi)
Receive Jesus on your knees and on your tongue, regardless of what your priest says! It is humility and enormous respect to God our Savior.
A.) The end of the matter. From King Baldwin:
1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.*
4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo.
5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.*
The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”*
7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.*
8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Tradition".*
B.) Protestant, schismatic modernists are like Luther who denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, 380 AD, etc.
Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc?
There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, say except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished since Peter giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either.
Thus everyone must obey all councils from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic and like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1-9.
@@raymack8767 Ray is off base, but doesn't seem to care. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
@@raymack8767 :
Absolutely!
You are so right!
@@angelicdoctor8016 :
No.
Ray Mack is correct.
When I first received 1st Holy Communion in 1965 we received on the hand and we dipped it into the chalice to receive His blood as well. The reverence I had then has only deepened. It is our heart and mind that is important and holding on to the most fundamental truths taught by Jesus and not subverting them. To me Jesus is present and is waiting to come to a heart that is open. Intentions are the most important thing. 🙏♥️
The eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus. Even without dipping it, it is still the blood.
Except that it is absolutely forbidden for non-priests to self-communicate by intinction. You were initiated into a Eucharistic abuse. Sorry about how you 'feel' about it. On your knees in front of God is appropriate. And the humility of being fed by the father, not 'taking' communion like fries and ketchup is intrinsically more reverent.
Many Eucharistic Miracles have happened where the bread turned to Eucharist became live flesh with fresh bllood. Eucharist alone is sufficient. It is body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.Amen.
I think some of the respondents might have misunderstood your wording, but I get the spirit of your message. I am of the belief that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling is the best way, but the Church herself has decided that receiving in the hand is morally acceptable. A HUGE part of being Catholic is understanding that we have a moral obligation to be obedient to the Church. So, while on the tongue may be ideal, to receive in the hand is wholly acceptable. The Church HAS since come out and said it is not acceptable to dip the Body in the Blood, so that's an easy "case closed" lol.
My other reply to the main thread more clearly states my understanding and beliefs about why it's actually VALUABLE for the Church to permit reception in the hand, contrary to popular opinion!
@@FigaroHey What a load of bull dung.
So when the Church "allows" women priests, we're not supposed to condemn that? Who gives you authority to decide where the line is drawn? I will never receive the Holy Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in my hand because someone said it was ok. Admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant.
Remember Mr Fradd, the indult was not requested universally, there are still some dioceses where touching the Eucharist with the hands is an abuse.
could you name a diocese for whom the indult does not apply?
This is true for the Eastern Catholics Churches.
@@angelicdoctor8016 diocèse of Oruro, Bolivia; diocèse of Kampala, Uganda. Those are the only I know of, there may be more.
Not in union with the Church
@@angelicdoctor8016 I believe it's in other countries other than the US, for example, where communion on the hand is not allowed. Not sure how many of those are left though.
Growing up I didn’t even know you could receive on the tongue. 😩
Yes and my family Parish when we were souped on the tongue a lot of people bullied us for it. If you read canon law and other documents of the Catholic Church though receiving on the tongue is the church's preferred method (the norm). Receiving in the hand in the churches eyes it's supposed to be an exception for extreme or unusual circumstances. There's nothing special about receiving something in the hand we do that every day it's a common thing to do. However if we receive the Eucharist on the tongue that will be the only thing we ever receive on the tongue which makes it special. Also the only other time that we kneel before someone is when we are proposing or if we still have kings and queens this is another thing that can bring more specialness. Since Jesus is both bridegroom and King and God kneeling is quite fitting.
since Vatican II, we have returned to some degree to the most ancient practices - in the early Church, Christians received Eucharist in the hand
That's why we need traditions and history to remind us of why saints do this and that. Time changes and distant us from God.
@@angelicdoctor8016As another person here, A Retrograde said:
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostlic Tradition. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for the schismatic NO.
To go against Trent makes one heretical like Luther.
@@raymack8767 Ray, Ray, Ray. Let me offer you a ray of hope! Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
This is such a helpful conversation. Thank you.
Receiving on the tongue is a beautiful act of reverence. However, it is important to remember that it is just that - an act of reverence. It should bring us closer to the Lord, but if we become prideful because of it, we are doing the opposite of what He wants. I only offer this caution because I have found this tendency in myself in the past. God Bless :)
It shouldn't have to be controversial. It was changed so anybody could handle and distribute it. It is just a.common piece of bread. No bid deal. I have seen it neglected on the nurses' station in the hospital. No wonder no one believes in it anymore. Good grief.
Every time I have had to receive it on my hands I find minuscule pieces of the host on my hands. This is why receiving Him on the tongue is more than just reverence. Imagine how many people receive Him and then wipe him on the first thing they touch.
@@sfrance8036 our leadership doesn't care.
@@sissybrooks8588 the premise of my argument is independent of leadership but on our inclinations.
@@sissybrooks8588 Oh my dear, it really is not just bread. It has become the Body of Jesus as He told us. When you know this, everything changes. God bless you.
The reason I've chosen not to receive on the hand comes from a great increase of dropping the particles of the Eucharist. I did receive twice in the hand after Masses re-opened but felt a great sense of almost guilt for doing it. I wanted to be obedient but it honestly went against my conscience. I do not believe it is sinful to receive on the hands but I genuinely understand why people choose not to receive at all if they are denied on the tongue. I could understand it being spiritual pride, but also, if one is doing it simply out of respect for Our Lord, I think that is a good reason to abstain. I would rather make a spiritual communion than drop a fragment of the host...it really doesn't come from pride. Thankfully many churches by me allow reception of the Eucharist on the tongue. I think another important note is that no bishop can make a rule of no receiving on the tongue because it is canon law. I think if bishops are specifically denying a pius act, there is more to be worried about.
the particles of the Eucharist are no longer Eucharist as Thomas Aquinas affirms: "if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain."' Also, the early Church received Eucharist in the hand - it's the earliest tradition.
We have gone thru a horrible forbidding of the faithful to receive the sacrament; not only communion, but the sacraments of confession, anointing of the sick , proper burial need I go on. While liquor stores and abortion clinic were called essential. We were restricted from the mass. And to how many could enter even with open air masses . Shut out and closed down. Why would any believer want have a spiritual communion when you can receive the Body,Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist. I will go to Communion. God protect the Church and the sacraments so we may receive in a state of grace.
@@angelicdoctor8016 The early church received on the hand only during persecution.
St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with excommunication.
@@itsnando20 you're mistaken and my reference from St. Cyril of Jerusalem as an example shows that reception on the hand was common place in the early Church - the practice did change, and Basil is part of the age that saw a gradual change to reception on the tongue -- there's no denying that both practices are a part of Church history
@@itsnando20 Here is St. Cyril of Jerusalem (from the mid 300s) on the topic:
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.
23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offense. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thessalonians 5:23:- To whom be glory and honour and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
I loved the communion rails! They were reverant and beautiful!
When Christ instituted the Eucharist, recall that the consecrated Eucharist was broken and passed to each hand of the Apostles (and those gathered for the Last Supper). The early Church did not place the Eucharist on the tongue, it was in the hands. We have their writings. They also appointed other Church members to bring the Eucharist to others.
Quote: (St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 348)
_“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but _*_placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right,_*_ which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”_ _(Catechesis mystagogica_ V, xxi-xxii, Migne _Patrologia Graeca 33)_