I had a priest tell me that touching the Host was a sacrilege. He said it went against Apostolic Tradition. I was wondering if recieving Holy Communion in the hand is not a proper way to recieve.

-- Stefanie Brunner (sbrunner@inu.net), March 24, 2003

Answers

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Receiving in the hand is now a fully acceptable way of receiving the Eucharist, as defined by the Magisterium of the Church. Your priest, sad to say, sounds like one of these "holier than the Pope" "traditionalists" who would rather be traditional than Catholic. Catholics follow the teaching of the Magisterium and of the Holy Father. There are a few such self-proclaimed "traditionalists" on this forum, so you can probably expect to hear from a few of them in response to your question. They will explain to you all the deep theological reasons why they are right and the Church is wrong. Hopefully someday they will return to true Catholic tradition, which means listening to the Vicar of Christ and the other duly appointed ecclesial authorities, through whom the Holy Spirit speaks.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Before I answer your question, let me ask you a couple, so I can see where you are coming from. If Our Resurrected Lord were to appear in front of you, in all His Divine glory, what would your posture be? Would you kneel or would you stand? Would you show Him respect by letting Him touch you if He so desired, or would you be bold and reach out and touch Him? Just wondering.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Dear Isabel,

One might rephrase your meaningless questions into other meaningless questions, such as ...

When Jesus was with the Apostles, in all his Divive glory, did they spend all their time on their knees, or did they walk with Him and talk with Him as brothers?

If Jesus Himself offered you a gift of immeasurable value, would you reach out with great reverence in a natural manner to receive it, or would you just stick out your tongue? Which did the Apostles do at the Last Supper? Jesus told them "Take this and eat it". He didn't say "stick out your tongue".

Please note that the woman who was "bold enough" (actually humble enough) to reach out and touch Him was the one who was healed.

I have not offered the above "arguments" either to denigrate Communion on the tongue, or to embellish Communion in the hand, because one is not preferable to the other - but only to highlight the absurdity of manufacturing silly arguments in an effort to place one's personal preference above the official teaching of the Church. Holy Mother Church teaches that BOTH methods of receiving are entirely acceptable. I am Catholic. Therefore BOTH methods are entirely acceptable to me.

P.S. Stephanie, don't say I didn't warn you :-)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Excellent, Paul. Now if only Isabel is willing to learn from you ...
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Stefanie,

Due to release of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) the Committee on the Liturgy for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have recently made a comment on this very topic. In part, they said:

“...the fact that the Communion Procession is a profoundly religious action tells us something about the way in which we should participate in this procession. We are the Body of Christ, moving forward to receive the Christ who makes us one with himself and with one another. Our procession should move with dignity; our bearing should be that of those who know they have been redeemed by Christ and are coming to receive their God! The new edition of the General Instruction asks the Conference of Bishops in each country to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions. Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. If Communion is received in the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the person distributing. The person distributing Communion says audibly to each person approaching, "The Body of Christ". This formula should not be altered, as it is a proclamation which calls for a response of faith on the part of the one who receives. The communicant should audibly respond "Amen," indicating by that response his or her belief that this small wafer of bread, the wine in this chalice are in reality the body and blood of Christ the Lord. When one receives from the chalice, the same proclamation is made by the person distributing Communion and the Communicant again responds "Amen." It should be noted that it is never permissible for a person to dip the host he or she has received into the chalice. If, for some reason, the communicant is not able or willing to drink from the cup then that person should receive only under the form of bread.” (Nov. 10/02 - http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.htm)

Hope this helps. If you are not from the United States, please refer to the Catholic Conference of Bishops responsible for your area.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

"Your priest, sad to say, sounds like one of these "holier than the Pope" "traditionalists" who would rather be traditional than Catholic."

After a certain point in discussions with those who wish to hold fast to the doctrines and traditions of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church against wave after wave of modernist attacks upon the it, the above phrase is the typical sad result of the frustration of being unable to address the truth of the matter at hand.

Two things of note: Traditionalism has nothing to do with the level of holiness of the pope; in fact, figuring who is holier than another is about the least productive consideration one can possibly imagine. It is about dogma, doctrine and tradition. The 'holier than the Pope' accusation is a non-argument and a strawman.

Secondly, there is also the inference here that traditionalists are not Catholic. Those who say as much have time and time again absolutely failed to make this case. Furthermore, they are not entitled to make this accusation... that traditionalists are not Catholic. Furthermore, it is untrue. Furthermore, it is a lack of charity to throw around these judgemental statements about other Catholics.

That being said, I actually kind of like you anyways, Paul, and you do a pretty good job of explaining other Catholic stuff.

But, seriously, this attitude about traditionalists has just got to go. It is that very attitude that help convince me that I was on the right track becoming one myself. Ironically, instead of calling myself a traditionalist, the word Catholic does just fine for me anymore.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Dear Emerald,

I agree that "holier than the Pope" is an essentially meaningless catch-phrase, best avoided. It would be far more accurate to say "more qualified than the Pope to interpret dogma, doctrine and tradition".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

"more qualified than the Pope to interpret dogma, doctrine and tradition"

Now I can completely hang with that for the purposes of discussion... not that I think it is the truth because of course I don't, but at least it something more, what, specific? Tangible? You know what I mean.

Thanks bud.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Either receiving on the tongue, or receive by having your right hand cupped under the left hand, receiving the host on your left palm, then immediately raise your left hand under your mouth, and grab the host with your right hand, and put it in your mouth. Consume the Host. Go back to your seat, and give thanks.

Abuses are talking to the Host, playing around with it in your hands, or taking it back to your pew.

Note, you can never receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, as that is a mortal sin itself. Go to confession first, if you know that you are in a state of mortal sin, or either go up for a blessing, or remain in the pew, saying some prayers. To receive a blessing, go up, bow your head, and ask the priest to bless you.

Isabel and that Priest you spoke to mean well, but it's not wrong at all to receive in the hand.

God bless you Stefanie!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Abuses would also include dropping the host into your jacket pocket, which a young fellow once did while I was distributing Communion. I was about to pursue him, but fortunately a couple of other folks in the congregation noticed what he had done, followed him to his seat, and retrieved the Eucharist. Apparently he had no sinister intent. He came to Mass with a friend, probably the first time he had ever attended Mass, and he just went up to "get" what everyone else was "getting", and then wasn't sure what to do with it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.

I think that there may be more clarification coming on this.

Below is a letter from the Vatican since the implementation of the above American norm:

Vatican Letter On Posture For Receiving Communion CONGREGATIO DEi CUl.TU DIVINO FT DISriPLINA SACRAMHM ORl'M

Prot. n. 2390/02/L

Rome, 25 February 2003 Dear Ms.

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received \ our letter dated 9 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

As the authority by virtue of whose recognitio the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: "... while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops' Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion". (my emphasis--Anna <><)

This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ, Mons. Mario Marini Undersecretary

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Thanks Anna, good work! I wasn't aware of this clarification.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Gordon,

I have no strongly held personal opinion on the practice, but I have heard of individuals objecting to the practice of using the Communion line to receive an individual blessing in lieu of Communion.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a special part of the Mass, and after all of the communicants have received and returned to their seats, the priest blesses the entire assembly before dismissal. What is the point of asking a blessing...before the blessing?

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

> "What is the point of asking a blessing...before the blessing?"

It's up to the priest, and it's something I see done here from time to time. It's usually asked for by people, who cannot receive communion, because either they are not Catholic, etc.

Why don't you ask a priest about this, and see what he says.

> "but I have heard of individuals objecting to the practice of using the Communion line to receive an individual blessing in lieu of Communion."

Where is the harm done? I mean some people will complain about anything.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

I believe Anna is correct Gordon in saying there is no place for a blessing at Communion. It presents all sorts of problems, not the least which is following the proper liturgy of the Mass. In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal I don't believe you will find anywhere where it states that the priest is to give out blessings at Communion. In addition, it sends a message to the congregation that the blessing at Communion is more special than the one given by the priest at the end of Mass to everyone, which of course is not the case. One blessing at the end of Mass by the priest suffices for all.

A request for blessing at Communion also presents a dilemma for Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist who do not possess the authority to give blessings. What are they to do? Send the person requesting the blessing over to communion line that has formed in front of the priest? The duty of the priest at Communion is to distribute Communion and nothing more.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

QUOTE: "Either receiving on the tongue, or receive by having your right hand cupped under the left hand, receiving the host on your left palm, then immediately raise your left hand under your mouth, and grab the host with your right hand, and put it in your mouth."

COMMENT: Instead of necessarily using left and right hands in the way described, it is permissible for a left-handed person to receive in the right hand and pick up (not "grab") the Host with the left hand. Forcing a person not to lift Jesus with the "dominant" hand increases the possibility of dropping Him.

God bless you.
John
PS: Ed L, I agree with you about the blessings. We discussed this at some length on another thread perhaps a year ago (or less).

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

This is in response to Paul's comment that the priest is a Traditionalist and would rather be traditionalist than Catholic. Tradition is a large part of the Catholic faith and I do not believe you can be a Catholic without being a traditionalist.

-- Stefanie Brunner (sbrunner@inu.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Dear Stefanie,

You are so very right! A person cannot be a Catholic without following the teaching of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, passed on through His infallible Church in the form of Apostolic Tradition! And a central part of that Sacred Tradition consists of submission to the teaching authority of the Church, bestowed upon the church by its founder, God Himself. And that is why in my initial post I consistently put the word "traditionalist" in quotes, indicating that those who refuse to accept the ongoing teaching of the Church, and limit themselves to undeveloped ancient understandings of infallible doctrine, are not following true Tradition at all. They are in fact obstructionists, not traditionalists.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

> "pick up (not "grab")"

John, in order to pickup the Host, you have to grab it, so your implication of grabbing the Host not being proper makes no sense.

> "I believe Anna is correct Gordon in saying there is no place for a blessing at Communion."

Ed, that's how you and Anna feel about it, and the Priest's I have seen giving out this blessing feel otherwise.

My last comment on these two issues, as I think this forum is so silly sometimes in how Catholics FEEL about things. Hope you don't take offense to me saying that, but just getting tired of bickering over such minor issues.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Gordon, You're 100% right. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

“...just tired of bickering over such minor issues.” Gordon, in my diocese some priests starting giving out blessings at communion. Now the practice is so wide-spread that our new Bishop is having a hard time curtailing the practice and is being viewed as the "bad guy" and as taking things "too seriously".

Gordon, anytime we start toying with the liturgy of the Mass we run the risk of conducting an illicit mass by desecrating our Lord and Saviour. I know I sound over-dramatic in saying this, but let me give you an example of how things can quickly spiral out of control from “minor issues” when changing the liturgy of the mass.

Sometime ago, a few parishes started the "cute" habit of allowing the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist the pleasure of ceremoniously washing their hands before distribution of Communion in much the same way at the priest/celebrant does. It was deemed to be a "holy and reverent" practice and no one could see the harm in it. For those who don’t know, this practice in liturgy, is reserved solely for the priest/celebrant of the Mass. It is a highly symbolic gesture steeped in tradition and has been practised down through time since the crucifixion. Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are to wash their hands before they come to Mass and are not permitted to do so in the sanctuary during Mass by liturgical law. Well, this practice went on for a few years in the diocese and since it was “cute” no one saw any reason to object to it. Then one day, in one parish, the sacrarium (tiny finger bowl) placed on the rear altar went missing and after giving out Communion, an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister used the crystal wash bowl at side of the altar on the credence table, to rid his fingers of particles of the most Blessed Sacrament. He literally rinsed our Lord from his hands in "ceremonial" dirty wash water. The sacrarium was never found or replaced and so, over the weeks and months that ensued, the practice of rinsing one’s hands of particles of the Eucharist, of Our Lord in the most Blessed Sacrament, in the wash basin was adopted by all Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers as they thought they were obliged to do this after giving out Communion each time, since they had seen others do this before them. Now, at each Mass in this parish Our Lord, who suffered and died for us on a Cross is desecrated in dirty wash water. The Masses held in this parish are illicit. I despatched a letter to the 67-year old semi-retired pastor about this two years ago and one week later after Mass he pulled me aside to tell me my “concerns were being taken under advisement” and he smiled. In other words, he told me in no uncertain terms, that no one was going to tell him how to run his parish. He's committed the ultimate sin of pride. I haven’t been back to that parish since.

This is only one example how throughout the years, practices can get bastardised and changed so drastically that they in fact, become unrecognisable and counter-productive to the purpose we have all gathered for in the first place - and that is, to glorify and worship our God. The liturgy has been safe-guarded and protected (for the most part) for two thousand years and blatant changes to it should always be questioned and/or challenged with the intent of preserving the valid and holy Mass that Christ initiated.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

The liturgy has been safe-guarded and protected (for the most part) for two thousand years and blatant changes to it should always be questioned and/or challenged with the intent of preserving the valid and holy Mass that Christ initiated.

Did I just hear you right? Imagine the smile on my face about now. :) Sorry, but I could not let that one pass.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Isabel, please read the threads more carefully. I have never said changes to liturgy should not be permitted or allowed. What I said was that changes to liturgy should be questioned. There is a difference. My point was that changes to liturgy if allowed to go unchallenged, can be made sufficient enough to change the validity of the Mass. I am not a proponent of never changing liturgy; but rather, I feel any changes proposed, should be thoroughly and properly investigated beforehand to ensure the validity of the Mass is not compromised.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

One word:

facetious

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Ed,

Like many on this forum, you appear to be very knowledgeable about the Faith, in particular the Catechism and the Liturgy. However, it would appear that you've judged Masses in that parish to be illicit. Would that judgement not be best left to the Director of Liturgy at your Diocese?

I ask this in all seriousness, and sincerely hope that I don't sound facetious in doing so :-)

God bless you,

Sara

-- Sara (sara@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

You know Sara, you could be right! Now... To find my Diocesan Director of Liturgy! I hope he isn't the pastor! HAHAHAHA!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Ed,

Now, that's what is called Sod's law!

:-))

Sara

-- sara (sara@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

For those of you who aren't British, Sod's Law is Murphy's Law. hehehehe!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Indeed it is British for Murphy's Law! Mr Lauzon, hmmmm that sounds like a French name, whilst at the same time your spelling would indicate otherwise, perhaps American. Either way, keep up the good work with your postings, very informative ane enjoyable. John Gecick and Paul can 'give you a run for your money', though!

hehehehe

God bless Sara

-- sara (sara@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Well, I am a French Canadian (in English I am supposed to use the British form of spelling) with heavy American influences (on the border and five major U.S. networks) so my actual spelling is all over the map. As far as Messrs. John G. and Paul C. are concerned, I yield to their expertise in most matters. And... I don’t give a “monkey’s commission" (Irish) what you think! hehehehehe!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Ed,

touche!

Sara

-- Sara (sara@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Ed, that is an extreme example to prove your point, why you think blessings during communion time is wrong. I still disagree with you, and feel it's up to the discretion of the Priest, but if the local Bishop says no, then of course I would say it should not be allowed, as his authority has to be respected in such matters. Our local bishop has not disallowed such practices, and I have seen no abuse concerning it.

Anyway, your concerns will be taken under advisement. Am I not a funny guy? :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Jmj
Hello, Gordon.

In my last post, I quoted you as having written: "... raise your left hand under your mouth, and grab the host with your right hand, and put it in your mouth."
Then, as part of my comment, I wrote: "... pick up (not 'grab') the Host ..."

I was very surprised that you had used the word "grab" originally -- and then stunned to see that you went on to defend the use of the word, as follows: " ... in order to pick up the Host, you have to grab it, so your implication of grabbing the Host not being proper makes no sense."

After thinking about this, Gordon, I realized that you must not have been taught the meaning and "connotation" of the word "grab." One would not use the word in connection with the Host, because it would leave almost anyone with a visual picture of an irreverent or careless act. "Grab" does not imply merely "grasp" or "take hold of." Here is how the dictionary defines it:

1. To take or grasp suddenly: "grabbed the letter from me."
2. To capture or restrain; arrest.
3. To obtain or appropriate unscrupulously or forcibly: "grab public funds;" "grab power."
4. To take hurriedly: grabbed my coat and hat and left.
5. (Slang) To capture the attention of.

So, again, I urge you not to speak of "grabbing" the Host.

Gordon, Ed L wrote: "I believe Anna is correct, Gordon, in saying there is no place for a blessing at Communion."
To this you replied (in part), with my emphasis added: "Ed, that's how you and Anna feel about it, and the Priest's I have seen giving out this blessing feel otherwise."
After Ed responded to you, you added: "I ... feel it's up to the discretion of the Priest, but if the local Bishop says no, then of course I would say it should not be allowed, as his authority has to be respected in such matters."

Gordon, liturgical proprieties/improprieties are not a matter of "feeling," but of fact. The Church has written liturgical regulations for excellent reasons, so people (not even priests or bishops) cannot do what they "feel" like doing during the Mass.

The basic principle was stated in the first document of Vatican II and has often been reiterated and clarified:
"[Sacrosanctum concilium, 1963] 22. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." [The "territorial bodies of bishops" later came to be known as regional or national "bishops' conferences."]

The instructions and rubrics of the Mass do not mention the time of distribution of Holy Communion as being also a time for special blessings of non-communicants. The Church's specific regulations for the celebration of Mass speak of only a very few freedoms that can be exercised by individual bishops. These do not include the addition of new blessings during Communion.

A majority of your Canadian bishops' Conference would have to pass an adaptation to the liturgical regulations, allowing for such a blessing -- and the adaptation would have to be approved by the Vatican -- before the blessing could be given licitly. As was mentioned, such a regulation would cause a problem, though, since Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion cannot impose a blessing on people in church -- which may mean that the Vatican would not approve of such an adaptation.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 30, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

I stumbled across this thread while looking for some information about the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church. I am a Catholic, but Byzantine Catholic, not Roman. For those who may not know the difference, Byzantine Catholics are in communion with the See of Rome, i.e., the Holy Father, but practice the Faith according to the Greek-Byzantine Tradition.

For those who feel that kneeling is the superior way to receive Holy Communion, you may want to read the Canons of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) -- it strictly forbids kneeling on Sundays, especially during the fifty days between Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost! This Council was meant for the Universal Church - Roman and Eastern. Unfortunatly, the West forgot this important Canon and allowed personal piety to replace sound doctrine and canons. Vatican II was correct in restoring this ancient and dignfied custom of receiving Holy Communion that has been observed by Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians for almost 2000 years!

Just something to think about.

-- Joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 18, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Jmj
Hello, Joseph. I have "something [for you] to think about."

You wrote: "Unfortunatly, the West forgot this important Canon and allowed personal piety to replace sound doctrine and canons."

You are mistaken, Joseph. The canon you mention was a disciplinary rule, meaning that it was not a fixed doctrine, but a changeable rule. A later pope decided to change the discipline for the Western/Latin church, permitting or requiring kneeling at a certain point in history. Catholics of the East have no right whatsoever to criticize this papal decision, just as Catholics of the West have no right whatsoever to criticize the East's continued practice of standing.

You continued: "Vatican II was correct in restoring this ancient and dignfied custom of receiving Holy Communion that has been observed by Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians for almost 2000 years!"

Please notice that even you yourself identify standing as a "custom" -- and therefore changeable. However, please be aware of the fact that it was not "Vatican II" that "restor[ed]" an old custom of standing to the West. The permission (not requirement) to stand came after Vatican II, which ended in 1965; it is not in any of the Council documents. Please take note of the following from a 1980 Vatican instruction (Inaestimabile Donum):
"11. The Church has always required from the faithful respect and reverence for the Eucharist at the moment of receiving it. With regard to the manner of going to Communion, the faithful can receive it either kneeling or standing, in accordance with the norms laid down by the episcopal conference ..."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

John says:

< You are mistaken, Joseph. The canon you mention was a disciplinary rule, meaning that it was not a fixed doctrine, but a changeable rule. A later pope decided to change the discipline for the Western/Latin church, permitting or requiring kneeling at a certain point in history.>>

John, what leads you to believe that Canon No. XX of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea is not "fixed," but "changeable?" The Universal Church holds that the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (as well as all Ecumenical Councils) are infallible. While it's true that only the Father's Profession of Faith bears the *anathematises* at the end, it's a bold assumption to discard the other Canons of the Council as "changeable." The very end of the Council concludes with:

'Pray for us all that our DECISIONS may remain SECURE through almighty God and our lord Jesus Christ in the holy Spirit, to whom is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.' - Bold, mine. This was said for the entire Canons, not just a selected few.

<>

John, I would disagree with a Pope's decision to reverse an Ecumenical Council's command. If the Fathers (many of whom are saints) of the First Council of Nicea didn't see the error in kneeling on Sundays, why then did they order the faitful to stand on Sundays throughout ALL dioceses [of the East and West]? St. Basil the Great says, "On the first day of the week we stand when we pray. The reason is that on the day of Resurrection, by standing at prayer, we remind ourselves of the grace we have received." Many other Fathers forbid ever to kneel on Sundays as well.

Let me say that it's not an issue of, <<'Catholics of the East have no right whatsoever to criticize this papal decision...'>> Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians violate the Canon as well. The rationale is often because some Eastern churches do not have more "kneeling" services during the penetential/fasting seasons and "make up" for it on Sunday liturgy. Many Eastern priests will allow kneeling on Sundays out of "pastoral need." However, this theology goes against not only the wisdom of the Church Fathers, it goes against the direction of an Ecumenical Council.

< Please notice that even you yourself identify standing as a "custom" - - and therefore changeable.>>

Perhaps custom was the wrong word. I should've said, "DECREE." Can it be changed? Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

<>

Can you tell me then which document first gives the permission? I know that standing for Holy Communion existed before 1980 in the Roman Church.

<>

Up until recently, kneeling on Sundays was the norm. My point was that standing is equally as dignified as kneeling, and should be the preferred posture of prayer on Sundays according to the wisdom of the Fathers and the Council of Nicea. However, many Catholics continue to assert that kneeling is more dignified/reverent. I disagree.

What I think WE ALL would agree on is that the Eucharist must be approached with as much preparation, reverence and love as possible. Whether we receive in our hand or on our tongue, it is Christ-God Who we receive in this Mystery of our salvation. The manner in which we receive is secondary.

In the Risen Christ,

Joseph

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 22, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Jmj
Hello, Joseph. Thanks for your reply. Some "quotes and comments":

QUOTE: "John, what leads you to believe that Canon No. XX of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea is not 'fixed,' but 'changeable?' The Universal Church holds that the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (as well as all Ecumenical Councils) are infallible."

COMMENT: Joseph, there are two kinds of pronouncements forthcoming from the Vatican, from Councils, from bishops' conferences, and from individual bishops.
The first kind of pronouncement is the doctrinal kind. It is possible for a doctrinal pronouncement to be infallible. That is, it teaches a truth (of faith or morality) that does not contain error. It is permanently unchangeable, because truth never changes.
The second kind of pronouncement is the disciplinary kind. This kind of statement directs the faithful to do something (e.g., to attend Mass on some specific feast) or to avoid doing something (e.g., eating meat on Good Friday). The Church's "disciplines" are subject to change, by the appropriate person(s) in authority, according to the perceived common good of the faithful. Therefore, disciplinary pronouncements have nothing to do with "truth" or "infallibility."

Councils, including First Nicea, have sometimes issued disciplinary canons -- such as the one that forbade kneeling during the Easter Season. This was not doctrinal, so it was subject to change.

QUOTE: "John, I would disagree with a Pope's decision to reverse an Ecumenical Council's command."

COMMENT: Joseph, this reflects an error that some Catholics have made throughout history -- thinking wrongly that a Council's preference outweighs the judgment of a pope. The pope is the Church's supreme legislator, so he can choose to create or delete any law or disciplinary rule at any time. I recommend that you not disagree publicly with any pope's decision. Think about the fact that a pope is in a far better position than you are to know the wisest course of action.

QUOTE: "Perhaps custom was the wrong word. I should've said, "DECREE." Can it be changed? Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's correct."

COMMENT: Yes, "decree" or "discipline." I'm glad that you agree that a discipline can "be changed" by a pope. However, you cannot characterize a disciplinary change as "correct" or "incorrect." (Only a comment about doctrine can be "correct" or "incorrect.") A disciplinary rule can be "wise/unwise" or "prudent/imprudent" or "helpful/unhelpful."

QUOTE: "Can you tell me then which document first gives the permission? I know that standing for Holy Communion existed before 1980 in the Roman Church."

COMMENT: You should refer to the Latin (or Western) church. (The "Roman Church" is the diocese of Rome.) I'm not sure which "permission" you are talking about: "... gives the permission" for what? Please clarify.

QUOTE: "However, many Catholics continue to assert that kneeling is more dignified/reverent. I disagree."

COMMENT: You have the freedom to disagree. But it is factual that, for people in many cultures, kneeling and genuflection and even prostration are the pre-eminent expression of adoration and subjection to a higher power, especially to God. There are many examples of this recorded in the Bible. If you know how to do a rapid online search of the Bible, you can verify my words.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

John says:

<>

John, any Pope or Patriarch can change a practice to whatever he so wishes to do. It doesn't mean it prudent or correct. The Church teaches that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible. If you want to pick and choose which Canons are simply "disciplinary" and which are infallible, that's your choice. That's quite cavalier in my opinion.

<>

John, there are over 20 Canons of the First Council of Nicea. Please tell me how you know some of the Canons were merely "disciplinary" while the others are infallible. I'd like to know your formula. Better yet, since you are so sure of this, give me solid Church statements/teaching that say only selected Canons of the Council were infallible and not the entire document. Again, not your opinion, but solid Church teaching.

QUOTE: "John, I would disagree with a Pope's decision to reverse an Ecumenical Council's command."

<>

John, the Pope alone did not convoke the First Council of Nicea. It was truly an Ecumenical Council of both Eastern and Western Fathers from the Latin and Greek Church. The pronouncements of the Council of Nicea affected the whole Church - not just the Latin Church. Therefore, the Bishop of Rome cannot solely reverse a decision that was not his alone in the making. I would suggest that you bury your nose into some good books on Patristics and ecclesiology. You do realize that the Church existed before the Vatican and the Papacy, right?

<>

<>

Yes, discipline can be changed by a Pope, but not the mandates of an Ecumenical Council. You and I will forever disagree on the supremacy of Ecumenical Councils vs. Papal Decrees that affect just the Latin Church, post Great Schism.

<>

You're dabbling in semantics again, John. Sorry, but I, wouldn't lower the mandates of an Ecumenical Council to that of a local Council. Again,we will both agree to disagree.

<>

What!? Then according your defintion, Roman Catholic Churches do not exist in the U.S. because they are physically located outside of the Diocese of Rome? How absurd! The term "Western" could apply to any Church of the Western tradition, including most Protestant churches and would incorrect when speaking about the Roman Catholic Church. "Latin" and "Roman" and "Church of Rome" are all acceptable ways to indentify the Roman Catholic Church and those dioceses in communion it. I think most people are intelligent enough to understand that.

<>

John, I'm not disagreeing that kneeling and prostrations are worthy and dignified postures of prayer and worship and have their place liturgically and in private prayer. Western Christians (Catholic and Protestant) use kneeling as profound gestures of adoration, supplication and penitence. However, the early Church Fathers did not recognize a penitential attitude in the Eucharist liturgy, but clearly state that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection and is not penitential in character, but of liberation and profound joy. Read patristic sources to verify this. Therefore, kneeling, being a gesture more akin to servitude than liberation is not an appropriate gesture for Sundays and Eastertide. This is the teaching of the Fathers, not mine.

I hope, John, that you will take Patristic and ancient Christian sources into deeper appreciation in your understanding of the Catholic Faith.

God bless you. John

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 23, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Sorry for the double post...I don't think AOL is too compatible with this software... Here's my re-post with John's comments I addressed:

John says:

COMMENT: Joseph, there are two kinds of pronouncements forthcoming from the Vatican, from Councils, from bishops' conferences, and from individual bishops. The first kind of pronouncement is the doctrinal kind. It is possible for a doctrinal pronouncement to be infallible. That is, it teaches a truth (of faith or morality) that does not contain error. It is permanently unchangeable, because truth never changes. The second kind of pronouncement is the disciplinary kind. This kind of statement directs the faithful to do something (e.g., to attend Mass on some specific feast) or to avoid doing something (e.g., eating meat on Good Friday). The Church's "disciplines" are subject to change, by the appropriate person(s) in authority, according to the perceived common good of the faithful. Therefore, disciplinary pronouncements have nothing to do with "truth" or "infallibility."

Joseph:

John, any Pope or Patriarch can change a practice to whatever he so wishes to do. It doesn't mean it prudent or correct. The Church teaches that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible. If you want to pick and choose which Canons are simply "disciplinary" and which are infallible, that's your choice. That's quite cavalier in my opinion.

John says:

Councils, including First Nicea, have sometimes issued disciplinary canons -- such as the one that forbade kneeling during the Easter Season. This was not doctrinal, so it was subject to change.

Joseph:

John, there are over 20 Canons of the First Council of Nicea. Please tell me how you know some of the Canons were merely "disciplinary" while the others are infallible. I'd like to know your formula. Better yet, since you are so sure of this, give me solid Church statements that say only selected Canons of the Council were infallible and not the entire document. Again, not your opinion, but solid Church teaching.

John says:

QUOTE: "John, I would disagree with a Pope's decision to reverse an Ecumenical Council's command."

COMMENT: Joseph, this reflects an error that some Catholics have made throughout history -- thinking wrongly that a Council's preference outweighs the judgment of a pope. The pope is the Church's supreme legislator, so he can choose to create or delete any law or disciplinary rule at any time. I recommend that you not disagree publicly with any pope's decision. Think about the fact that a pope is in a far better position than you are to know the wisest course of action.

Joseph:

John, the Pope alone did not convoke the First Council of Nicea. It was truly an Ecumenical Council of both Eastern and Western Fathers from the Latin and Greek Church. Universal Papal Authority didn't even exist yet! The pronouncements of the Council of Nicea affected the whole Church - not just the Latin Church. Therefore, the Bishop of Rome could not solely reverse a decision that was not his alone in the making. I would suggest that you bury your nose into some good books on Patristics and ecclesiology. You do realize that the Church existed before the Vatican and the Papacy, right?

John says:

QUOTE: "Perhaps custom was the wrong word. I should've said, "DECREE." Can it be changed? Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's correct."

COMMENT: Yes, "decree" or "discipline." I'm glad that you agree that a discipline can "be changed" by a pope.

Joseph:

Yes, discipline can be changed by a Pope, but not the mandates of an Ecumenical Council. You and I will forever disagree on the supremacy of Ecumenical Councils vs. Papal Decrees that affect just the Latin Church, pre and post Great Schism.

John says:

However, you cannot characterize a disciplinary change as "correct" or "incorrect." (Only a comment about doctrine can be "correct" or "incorrect.") A disciplinary rule can be "wise/unwise" or "prudent/imprudent" or "helpful/unhelpful."

Joseph:

You're dabbling in semantics again, John. Sorry, but I, wouldn't lower the mandates of an Ecumenical Council to that of a local Council. Again, we will both agree to disagree.

John says:

COMMENT: You should refer to the Latin (or Western) church. (The "Roman Church" is the diocese of Rome.)

Joseph:

What!? Then according to your defintion, Roman Catholic Churches do not exist in the U.S. because they are physically located outside of the Diocese of Rome? How absurd! The term "Western" could apply to any Church of the Western tradition, including most Protestant churches and that would be incorrect when speaking about the Roman Catholic Church. "Latin" and "Roman" and "Church of Rome" are all acceptable terms to indentify the Roman Catholic Church and those dioceses in communion it. I think most people are intelligent enough to understand that.

John says:

QUOTE: "However, many Catholics continue to assert that kneeling is more dignified/reverent. I disagree." COMMENT: You have the freedom to disagree. But it is factual that, for people in many cultures, kneeling and genuflection and even prostration are the pre-eminent expression of adoration and subjection to a higher power, especially to God. There are many examples of this recorded in the Bible. If you know how to do a rapid online search of the Bible, you can verify my words.

Joseph:

John, I'm not disagreeing that kneeling and prostrations are worthy and dignified postures of prayer and worship and have their place both liturgically and in private prayer. Western Christians (Catholic and Protestant) use kneeling as profound gestures of adoration, supplication and penitence. However, the early Church Fathers did not recognize (or let me know say VALIDATE) a penitential character in the Eucharistic liturgy, but clearly state that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection and is not penitential in character, but of liberation and profound joy. Read patristic sources to verify this. Therefore, kneeling, being a gesture more akin to servitude than liberation is not an appropriate gesture for Sundays and Eastertide. This is the teaching of the Fathers, not mine.

I hope, John, that you will take Patristic and ancient Christian sources into deeper appreciation in your understanding of the Catholic Faith.

Good night/Good morning. It's 1:44 a.m PST.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 23, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Hello, Joseph.
In the very first message that you posted (above), you wrote:
"I am a Catholic, but Byzantine Catholic ..."

I need to ask you to confirm that you are a Byzantine Catholic and not a member of an Eastern Orthodox church.
The reason I am asking this is that you are not approaching the various points being discussed in the way that Catholics approach them. You are instead speaking in the way I have only seen Eastern Orthodox people speak -- including two major bad things:
(1) factual errors, wrong terminology, and lack of knowledge about basic things, and
(2) a "chip-on-the-shoulder" kind of attitude that comes from an inferiority complex -- i.e., feeling oppressed by the "big brother" (the more numerous Latins). [In other words, the Eastern Orthodox overcompensate by taking on a haughty, wiser-and-holier-than-thou attitude, which you have clearly adopted. It is most unbecoming in anyone, especially a Catholic.]

Joseph, if you really are a Byzantine Catholic and think that you can talk to me (and about the Church) with so much disrespect and snottiness, then I respectfully decline to discuss these matters with you.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Comment:

Hello, Joseph. In the very first message that you posted (above), you wrote: "I am a Catholic, but Byzantine Catholic ..." I need to ask you to confirm that you are a Byzantine Catholic and not a member of an Eastern Orthodox church.

ANSWER:

John, if you didn't understand it clearly the first time, for the record, I am a Byzantine Catholic, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the First Among Equals, His Holiness John Paul II. I am not a member of the Orthodox Church.

Comment:

The reason I am asking this is that you are not approaching the various points being discussed in the way that Catholics approach them.

ANSWER:

John, not all Catholics are Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church is a federation of many churches, traditions and expressions: Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melkite, Maronite, Ge'ez, Armenian, Malankarese, Syro- Malabar, Chaldean, Russian, etc. Eastern Catholics have a different interpretation/expression/profession of the same truths that Roman Catholics hold. However, we understand and express them differently, most often according to the tradition of the ancient Greek Church and the Church Fathers. Your problem is that you can't see the true universality of the Church past the walls of Rome, and only understand and interpret the Faith within a small microscosm of Latin instruction, theology and tradition. The Church is much bigger than that! So, to answer your question, no, I do not approach various points of the Catholic Faith as a Roman Catholic. Sorry if that disturbs you.

You are instead speaking in the way I have only seen Eastern Orthodox people speak -- including two major bad things:

Answer:

Most Eastern Catholics were brought into communion from the Orthodox Church. After suffering centuries of wrongful Latinization and the stripping of our Eastern Christian heritage, many Eastern Catholics are reclaiming our orthodox identity while remaining the sons and daughters of Rome. This is what Vatican II requested of Byzantine Catholics. Again, not all Catholics are Roman, John.

(2) a "chip-on-the-shoulder" kind of attitude that comes from an inferiority complex -- i.e., feeling oppressed by the "big brother" (the more numerous Latins). [In other words, the Eastern Orthodox overcompensate by taking on a haughty, wiser-and-holier-than-thou attitude, which you have clearly adopted. It is most unbecoming in anyone, especially a Catholic.]

ANSWER:

Byzantine Catholics are no strangers to being critized by your type of thinking. Thank goodness Vatican II advised Byzantine Catholics to return to our ancestry: ORTHODOXY. Read the encyclical, Orientalium Ecclesiarum. I've noticed that others have critized your thoughts and manner of speech as well, John.

Comment:

Joseph, if you really are a Byzantine Catholic and think that you can talk to me (and about the Church) with so much disrespect and snottiness, then I respectfully decline to discuss these matters with you.

ANSWER:

John, I respect and love the Church and the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the First Among Equals. If I didn't, I wouldn't remain a Catholic in communion with Rome. I believe the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. However, I do not agree with all Roman Catholic theology, ecclesiology and doctrine, above all, I challenge your theology and understanding of patristics. I too would welcome a "Cease and Desist" from any further engagements with you. It's not fruitful nor edifying.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 23, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

I bet everybody knows this, that the Pope prefers Communion in the tongue and urges the congregation he celebrates to in Rome, to recieve it that way. Also freemasons have been known to steal Holy Communion by taking it in the hand and practise black masses on it! If you really think about it, when you recieve Holy Communion, you are recieving the true presence of Jesus Christ. I just think it is more respectful to recieve him in the tongue, since when you do it, it gives a sense of awe and mystery.

But thats me anyway...

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Dear Andrew,

No-one should criticize you for your preference, since it is completely approved by Holy Mother Church. Likewise, no-one should criticize those who prefer to receive in the hand, as the Apostles and the early Church did, for that option is also completely approved by Holy Mother Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 05, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Jmj
Hello, "josephwill" (in case you are lurking rather than gone now).

For some strange reason, I must have skipped by this thread more than once since your last post (on the 23rd) -- until I just saw it today.

Sorry to have to say these things, but your reply to me was even more outrageous than your other replies on this and another thread. If I had a couple of free hours, I could rip your reply to shreds, because there is nothing correct or of any value in it. Besides being loaded with errors, it is full of obnoxious, patronizing remarks -- with your false assumptions that I do not know things that I actually do know, etc..

You certainly proved my point:
You are NOT a Catholic, even though you tell people that you are.
You are a schismatic Eastern Orthodox -- and even less well-informed than most Orthodox are. That's all there is to it. How very, very sad!

Josephwill, if you are suddenly overcome with regrets for what you have done, and you want me to help you out by explaining the errors in your message, please let me know.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

That's some pretty good ecumenism you got going on there, John. Yeah, that'll work.

Look, when are you going to pick up a little charity? When is it going to finally, finally strike you that the way you treat people is an absolute affront to CHRIST?

When are you finally going to get a clue that you are demonizing your own Catholicism talking to people this way? Christ would absolutely not have anything to do with this.

When? It seems to be getting worse, and worse, and worse, and worse.

You know what is so bizarre about this? Let me tell you what's bizarre. My position against ecumenism and against deviation from the extra ecclesiam doctrine has people falsely assuming it has something to do with the likes of the way you treat this man above.

But guess what? You're the one that actually IS treating him like ****.

You treat people like ****, John. That's the failure of you're own ecumenism right there. That's why I don't want much to do with this forum anymore. Not because of anything else except that those who propose to be the orthodox among us show the absolute worst violations of charity I have ever seen in print. Personally, I am repulsed by it and want little to do with it from here on, which ought to please you immensely.

What's also amazing is that no one takes you to task for it more often. What is up with that?

Besides that, josephwill's Eastern Orthodox liturgy is superior to yours.

Quit coughing up blood and get control over the things you say to people.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 06, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

On how to receive the Holy Eucharist...

My husband was telling the kids earlier what was going to happen when they went up. As he got to the part about putting your hands up...he stopped and said well, now wait a minute...I remember the first time we had it done, he put it on our tongue because they had soaked the Eucharist in the Wine.

Wonder if they still do it that way???? Anyone know?

Thanks!

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 06, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Dear Jackiea,

Dipping the host in the Precious Blood (intinction) is still a valid way of distributing the Eucharist, but in spite of its theological validity it is not generally allowed for normal distribution of the Eucharist, because of the high likelihood of dripping the Precious Blood onto the floor or onto the clothing of the person receiving. However, the host alone can be received validly and licitly either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of the recipient.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Jmj

Hello, Paul. You wrote: "[I]ntinction ... is not generally allowed for normal distribution of the Eucharist, because of the high likelihood of dripping the Precious Blood onto the floor or onto the clothing of the person receiving."

Intinction may not be "generally allowed" by the (arch)bishop of your (arch)diocese, but the Church does not actually say that intinction "is not generally allowed for normal distribution."

The new 2000 G.I.R.M. explains Communion by intinction and never states a discouraging word about it. Intinction is used every day in some places -- e.g., a Poor Clares monastery in my diocese. The only thing required to obviate the potential problem you mentioned (dripping) is the use of a paten ("Communion plate") -- which the G.I.R.M. says should be used for any kind of distribution of Holy Communion. In my opinion, intinction should be available everywhere, even where the chalice is now being offered, for three reasons:
1. I believe that there is a far greater chance for a spilling accident in the act of drinking -- or in the process of the chalice changing hands -- than in intinction.
2. I believe that many people perceive the sharing of a chalice as unsanitary and potentially disease-spreading -- but most of these same people do not have this perception with intinction.
3. This may not seem very important to many, but far less consecrated wine is needed for Communion by intinction than for Communion by drinking.

Here are the passages from the new G.I.R.M.:

"245. The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon."

"285. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:
a. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants’ drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.
b. If Communion is carried out by intinction, the Hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant."

"287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred Particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, 'Corpus et Sanguis Christi' ('The Body and Blood of Christ'). The communicant responds, 'Amen,' receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

Response to What is the proper way to recieve the Holy Eucharist

Jmj

Emerald, please just leave, as you promised yesterday, on two separate threads, that you were doing.
There is no validity to your complaints and criticisms of me. You are simply projecting onto the "josephwill" situation your own hatred of me, which exists in your heart because I have not let you get away with your heretical messages. Your anger has its roots in the guilt that you feel, deep down, at your unwillingness to be a faithful Catholic.

You complained: "What's also amazing is that no one takes you to task for it more often. What is up with that?"

To simplify my reply to your bugle call for others to pile on me, I won't speak about anything except the "josephwill" situation.
There is no point in anyone "tak[ing me] to task" about what I have done. Anyone (i.e., anyone who is not wearing the blinders you are wearing) has seen in josephwill's messages, on this and another thread, all the things that I criticized above.
I told him: "Sorry to have to say these things, but your reply to me was even more outrageous than your other replies on this and another thread. ... Besides being loaded with errors, [your reply] is full of obnoxious, patronizing remarks -- with your false assumptions that I do not know things that I actually do know, etc.. You certainly proved my point: You are NOT a Catholic, even though you tell people that you are. You are a schismatic Eastern Orthodox ..."

An objective Catholic can read josephwill's messages, above and elsewhere, and see that my description of his words is accurate. But, Emerald, instead of your being able to see josephwill's provocative pride, errors, and insults, the only thing that you noticed was my criticism of his misbehavior. Therefore, I have to ignore your comments, because they do not mesh with objective reality.
Please, just go now, and stop inflicting pain on the both of us.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.