Profaning Our Eucharistic Lord Piece by Piece

IMG_0722

In his 2014 interview with the Catholic Herald UK, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan spoke of the great crisis facing the Church today, due in large part to the widespread mistreatment of the Eucharist. Bishop Schneider noted:

To my knowledge and experience, the deepest wound in the actual crisis of the Church is the Eucharistic wound; the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament…

There is…the question of the objectively irreverent reception of Holy Communion. The so-called new, modern manner of receiving Holy Communion directly into the hand is very serious because it exposes Christ to an enormous banality.

This isn’t simply the opinion of Bishop Athanasius Schneider either. While few bishops have spoken out against the modern practice, and many episcopal conferences permit it, Rome has itself acknowledged the inherent problem with distributing Communion in the hand. The Office for Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff has weighed in on this very matter. From the Vatican’s website:

From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

It is for this very reason that the Holy Father returned to the traditional practice of giving Communion on the tongue at papal masses.

While others have written about the widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence over the last forty years (a view supported by multiple studies), it is the Vatican’s first point of emphasis that should be of immediate concern to us. Put simply, receiving Communion in the hand leads to a loss of Eucharistic particles resulting in profanation of the Blessed Sacrament.

Bishop Schneider has addressed this concern as well:

There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments. No one can deny this. And the fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet. This is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet! No one can deny it.

[…]

A priest and a bishop cannot say this practice is ok. Here is at stake the most holy, the most divine and concrete on Earth.

In recent years I have heard this concern dismissed, even doubted, by those advocating for the modern practice. Some see these prophetic warnings against profanation as a form of scrupulosity, a rigidity that is over-the-top in its concern for the Eucharist. It appears that many have forgotten that Our Lord is “present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist…”(Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 22).

Indeed, a defense of Communion in the hand requires us to believe one of two propositions. Either:

  • The Vatican and Bishop Schneider are being dishonest when they say that fragments of Our Eucharistic Lord are lost when Communion is distributed in the hand; or…
  • Particles are lost but we simply do not care because Catholics are used to this modern practice and we cannot ask them to change now. In other words, fear of Man instead of fear of the Lord.

A dialogue about this matter of grave importance is needed now more than ever. The very fact that few are interested in having the conversation should concern us. As Bishop Schneider has said, “fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet…Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet!”

A priest recently shared something with me that I believe few of the laity know, but which demands to be known. He said that at every Mass…every Mass…he sees particles of the host floating in the sacred chalice after rubbing together his thumbs and fingers, and after brushing off the paten. Here we are not simply speaking of that which is too small to see. No, these pieces are actually visible to the naked eye!

I have since asked nearly a dozen other priests about this and have received back the same answer. To a man each one said that they also see or feel fragments of Our Lord at every Mass. Unfortunately, the care they take to prevent the loss of particles on the altar cannot be duplicated when distributing communion in the hand. I am convinced that many of the laity have not fully realized this yet. It also seems to me that it is unfair for a bishop to ask obedience from his priests in a matter of profanation of the Eucharist. And yet, until bishops end this irreverent practice in their dioceses once and for all, that is indeed what is happening.

As stated earlier, either we believe pieces of Our Lord aren’t being lost and trampled, or we choose not to care. Our bishops no doubt see and feel fragments when offering the Holy Mass. Therefore, it seems to me that they have chosen the latter and not the former. And if so, how can we then not acknowledge that it is fear of Man which is preventing the Church from ending this profane practice?  In the end, Our Eucharistic Lord should never be viewed as acceptable collateral damage because we are afraid to do what we know is right.

Posted on September 30, 2017, in liturgy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 52 Comments.

  1. I certainly would prefer to receive on the tongue, but what are my options? There is one parish that users altar servers to hold a paten under the host as it goes into the hand and then the mouth, but that’s the only one. The bishop has also allowed one parish to celebrate in Latin but it’s small and not very close. I have visited there are time or two. Thanks for all you do.

    • Seems simple enough. First, get in the line that goes to the priest. You walk up and kneel on the floor, fold your hands below you and receive.

      I see this commonly at novus ordo Masses and it’s what we do when we are a novus ordo Mass which is admittedly rare. Have never had a problem. I do not receive the cup so that isn’t applicable.

      Are you saying your priest will not commune you in that position?

      What Traditional and correct reception does is also make one reflect on WHO is offering the Body and Blood. For that matter, it makes one reflect on the entire Mass…

      • I am of the same opinion and practice, that being knees and on the toung. But the Blood is a precious gift, high solemnities; Easter, Christ the King, etc and the month of July ( the month were mother Church sets aside itself to the previous Blood.) I will receive from the cup as well. I think of it as don’t pass up such a wonderful gift.

  2. American bishops are not interested in this issue since the only thing that seems to motivate them is advocating for Communist Liberation Theology and the “preferential option” for the poor while they live in multi-million dollar mansions. Cardinal Wuerl’s penthouse mansion on top of an old Catholic school is valued at $43 million. I hope he is paying property taxes on it as a private residence so he does not get sent off to jail for tax evasion.

    If you are interested in rubrics and liturgy, you will not be made a bishop.

    If you are interested in promoting international Communism, you will be made a bishop.

  3. Virginia Jimmo

    When i receive Holy Communion on the tongue, I feel the reverence for what I received in my subconscious as well as in my mind. It gives one a special feeling that cannot be discribed. This feeling is increased even more when I am kneeling at the altar rail. I wish everyone had that blessing. But they can only receive it if our priests gives his sheep the opportunity to receive in this many. I know I am blessed at Our Lady if Lourdes. I thank God often for this blessing.

  4. It is sad that the priest sees the particles in the Wine and doesn’t become more upset. Who knows what goes on in his mind and heart, however. God bless them all. What that particular happening says to me, however, is that I am participating in sacrilege when attending the Novus Ordo. There must be particles on the floor and I could be stepping on them. Not a chance that I want to take.

  5. Here in the Archdiocese of New Orleans, we have the same issue with Archbishp Aymond. He’s far more worried about man than God. He will not give his priests permission to distribute communion on the tongue exclusively. Even if they (the priests) request to do so.

  6. Ronald Sevenster

    Do the bishops care about anything else but numbers, good publicity, and …money (in the reversed order)?

  7. Do we want to know why the Church is failing in the West? I wonder if it is because the Catholic Mass, instead of being the place where due worship offered to God and he is worthily received by us in the Eucharist, has instead become the place we go to celebrate sacrilege on a massive scale every week? Perhaps it is because millions upon millions eat and drink judgment on themselves every week while pastors turn a blind eye to the profaning of the body and blood of the Lord? Perhaps this is why the faith is sick and even dying in the West?

    1. Many Catholics who receive the Eucharist do not even believe in the real presence. Some surveys put it over 45%
    2. Many Catholics who receive the Eucharist do not believe or even try to follow the teachings of the Catholic faith regarding sexual morality. Contracepting, anyone?
    3. Many Catholics who receive the Eucharist are in states of un-repented grave sin. Perhaps the biggest example is receiving after missing Sunday Mass without excuse and without having gone to confession and been absolved.
    4. Many Catholics display lack of respect and even disdain for the Eucharist by their attitude, posture and attire when they receive the Eucharist.

    1Cor 11:27-30.
    27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

    Just a theory.

    • May I share your comments, BXVI?

    • Franklin P. Uroda

      The Eucharist (Jesus God Almighty in the Flesh), stored away in a lock-up, in very private surroundings, is not the cause of the so-called failing of the contemporary Church. If there is any failing, it is, IMO, the lack of explicit Catholic presence, not only at abortion clinics, but also-to get on the edge-priests doing street preaching. As a young Catholic, I was very impressed by a local minister who used to preach on a Saturday night, in the midst of people out shopping. To think that men would do that because of their love for Jesus really got to me. All I experienced was strangely clad men ‘way up front, talking in a foreign language, in my parish church.

      • The typical Novus Ordo priest is a Hard Leftist, propagandizing for all of the causes used by the Hard Left to tear down traditional society:
        — Radical egalitarianism (everyone is the same and their are no hierarchies),
        — Women must run everything in the Catholic Church: The bureaucracy of the USCCB is 90% radical, lesbian, feminists so now you know why the USCCB is endlessly spouting lesbian and feminist nonsense with their stupid, 5,000 page “pastoral letters” trying to tell everybody how to live their lives when the USCCB and its clergy can’t even keep their zippers up when required,
        — The Catholic Church began in 1962 when Vatican II began and their is no Catholic history prior to 1962,
        — Flood the West and all Christian lands with Muslims to eliminate Christianity.

  8. This article is strong on rhetoric and weak on facts. The reality is that communion in the hand is the oldest documented custom for reception of the Eucharist, with clear instructions on how to do so reverently.

    Further, there is no evidence that the Eucharist is dropped any more or less when received on the tongue or in the hand. It can be (and sometimes is) dropped either way.

    Further, the claim that one is more reverential than another is purely subjective and, as we see, often involves a series of false and pejorative assertions.

    Further, I know of no evidence that receiving in the hand is either the result or cause of a lack of belief in the Real Presence.

    Finally, the claim/implication that one is more likely to lead to abuse is simply false. Someone who chooses to abuse the Eucharist will do so whether it was placed on his tongue or in his hand.

    • “This article is strong on rhetoric and weak on facts.”

      Much like your comment Seth.

      “The reality is that communion in the hand is the oldest documented custom for reception of the Eucharist…”

      Old, yes. Most likely never universal, though we don’t know. Unknown to the eastern churches. Gone from the west in the first millennium, not to return for 1,000 years until 1970 or so.

      Paragraphs 2 & 5 object to claims that I never even raise in the article. Read it again.

      Paragraph 3 is in direct contradiction to Rome, specifically the Office for Liturgical Celebrations for the Supreme Pontiff, as quoted in my article.

      Paragraph 4 is countered by every known study, regardless of causation or correlation…still much more than you’ve given us.

      Lastly, you write as one who has not consistently experienced receiving the Eucharist in both manners, nor as one who has been in a parish environment supporting the traditional practice. Those of us who have experienced both over the course of years know of what we speak.

      In other words, Bishop Athanasius Schneider has more credibility than you do Seth.

    • Also, please see Mary Ann’s video link above. The experiment conducted addresses the profanation that my article is speaking about: the loss of fragments/particles (though unintentional) through this post-conciliar innovation of communion in the hand. (And yes, a practice gone for 1200 years from the western liturgy is an innovation).

      • Fr. Donald Kloster

        As always thank you Mr. Williams for the great article. Perhaps Seth Murray is unaware of a near Eastern tradition where the host of the meal placed the first morsel of bread on the tongue of his visitors.

        Furthermore, the Bishops of Vatican II were asked about the very issue of Communion in the Hand. Well over 70% said that Communion in the hand would undermine belief in the Real Presence in Holy Communion. They also predicted that it would result in less respect for Holy Communion.

        I would add that it makes it much easier for Satanists or mischievous people to steal/profane the Sacred Host.

        Before 1977, over 90% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence. 1977 was the year Pope Paul VI allowed communion in the hand (a full 12 years after the Council ended). Currently, that number is generously around 30%. It’s no coincidence belief in the Real Presence has fallen so badly….the solid majority of the Bishops of the Vatican Council II were correct.

    • Joann Feldpausch

      At one time some years ago, as the priest was handing me the host, he dropped it,I immediately picked up the host and placed Jesus on my tongue. I II hope I did the right thing!

    • Well stated, Seth.

  9. Brian hit the nail on the head when he said fear is the reason we are not seeing the practice of kneeling on the tongue practiced in more parishes. I believe that funding is at the heart of that fear. Priest and Bishops pander to that baby boomer generation that has for years made up the bulk of their weekly contributions. The same generation that grabbed on wholeheartedly to the liturgical reforms of the ’60’s and ’70s. That is at least the few that actually stayed members of the Catholic church grabbed on to the reforms. Priests look to making a change like Ad Orientem or asking the faithful to kneel as spending social capital that is better spent in other arenas like fund raising.
    However that generation is increasingly on fixed retirement incomes, and becoming a smaller percentage of contributions. Meanwhile the next generation has nothing left worth contributing to. They long for the Tradition of the Church to re-manifest itself. There will be a change once priests and bishops realize there is a new generation that will have their backs.

    Also, for those of us that long for reception of kneeling on the tongue. We need to cast aside our fears too. As RodH said, “Seems simple enough. First, get in the line that goes to the priest. You walk up and kneel on the floor, fold your hands below you and receive.” No comfy altar rail to kneel at? kneel anyway, it is our Lord, He certainly wasn’t comfortable on the Cross. We need to shed the fear of being looked at strangely or the priest will yell at us if we kneel to receive. If we are the only ones in the whole Church to do it, so be it. One becomes two, two becomes 4, 4 becomes 256, 1024….. you get the idea, but it has to start at 1. No priest or bishop has the right to ask you to stand and receive in the hand. Kneeling and on the tongue is the norm.
    Let’s make those who receive on the hand feel like the outcast, like the one who showed up for a black tie event in jeans and a t-shirt.

    • Irene gewinner

      You are not an outcast if you kneel and receive Jesus on your tongue…you are a beloved child of God, just as I am when I bow and receive Him in my cupped hand.

      • Franklin P. Uroda

        Baptized (in the Name of the Blessed Trinity); Confirmed (sealed with and by the Holy Spirit); receiving Holy Communion (Jesus God Almighty) day after day, or week after week, receiving the other Sacraments (Penance, Marriage, Anointing) indicates more than the mild phrase “Child of God” does “A consecrated, sacred-holy-person” gets to the heart of the reality. When there is a church filled with such persons, the contemplated holiness is overwhelming. It’ s easy to forget this reality.

  10. I’ve fought bitterly over items related to this issue along the same line of thought – and paid heavily for it, mind you – but can we not make a distinction between, for instance, “particles” and “fragments,” or “Eucharistic particles,” and “doubtful particles”? It would seem that just because some remnant of the Elements can be seen does not necessarily imply that it retains the Real Presence, given that the “accidents” must be assumed to be those sufficiently recognizable as bread – not as dust, for example. The question of “how small is ‘too small'” seems quite important to this discussion: even different kinds of altar breads can make this more/less of a problem. What do you think?

  11. Blessedly, we are able to attend an ad orientam Sunday Mass where the priest keeps his thumb and forefinger together until after distributing Holy Communion. At weekday NO Masses in another parish this is not the practice, and it seems to be a very common for the priest just before distributing Communion to reach under his chasuble and turn off the ubiquitous microphone box in his pocket (or hanging from the cincture). One day it struck me that this box was covered with miniscule fragments from years of use.

  12. Timothy M. Allen

    Aside from the reality of disrespect toward God, and even sacrilege, should fear supplant our reverent reception of communion? This seems to be more of an OCD issue. Particles will still go airborne with reception on the tongue..particles which will inadvertently land on the floor or worse. Isn’t Jesus in His most minute form less of a worry than a similar-sized virus, which any honest priest will tell you should be a worse fear at communion time; how much saliva is exchanged with all the inadvertent licks of the priest’s hand by those receiving on the tongue? It seems you have a latent doubt about the power of God. If He’s clever enough to get in there (the host) don’t you think He’s clever enough to get out before getting stepped on?

  13. I have been a priest for 56 years. Long ago, we had “crumbs” which fell on the paten or corporal and were then placed in the consecrated wine to be consumed. That was common and liturgically accepted practice. For decades now, I have rarely found a “crumb.” Perhaps in Kazakhastan they use leavened bread which produces more “crumbs” and so have some kind of a problem. In researching I found that Communion in the hand was commonplace until somewhere around the 1,000’s when a petty French king, Henry the Pious, decided that the laity was unworthy to touch the consecrated Host. That practice spread–probably a form of clericalism. In philosophy and theology I was taught that we do not touch the body of Christ but only the accident of appearance. I think that people should receive on the tongue or in the hand–which ever they prefer. Yet I wonder, whatever happened to the command of Jesus: “TAKE and eat.”

    • Fr. Donald Kloster

      I have been a priest for 22 years. We both should be aware that Holy Communion only remains the Real Presence as long as it is visible to the naked eye. Communion in the hand was not common in the 11th century. Please provide your source. I too have done a lot of research in the area and I disagree with you.

      Sixtus I (115-125) “It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels.” If the faithful couldn’t even touch the sacred vessels, how in the world do you propose that they were invited to touch the Holy of Holies?

      • It seems to me that the crux of the issue is “visible to the naked eye” and I do not think that dust particles are going to meet that definition as an overall rule. I watched the video and I know that as an EMOHC I do not put the host in the Communicant’s hand with any force whatsoever, I lay it tenderly, lovingly and gently. Will there be dust from the consecrated host following that procedure? Very likely. Will there be any visible fragments? It is possible but unlikely (I know that I’ve never seen a fragment in my hand in all of the years that I’ve received on the hand). I appreciate the concern of priests who see the dust particles in the Sacred Vessels but there is a difference between a priest handling hundreds of Hosts and a Communicant who is handling one. (And I should add that as an EMOHC there are no provisions for me to cleanse my fingers of any dust particles after distributing Communion.)

        It also seems to me that the biggest concern is the loss of belief in the Real Presence by receiving in the hand. If that is in fact occurring than we need to increase our Catechesis to combat that.

      • To: sparks1093
        “And I should add that as an EMOHC there are no provisions for me to cleanse my fingers of any dust particles after distributing Communion.”

        They use to keep a small, covered water bowl next to the tabernacle just for assisting priests and EMOHCs to cleanse their fingers after distributing Holy Communion although I don’t think I have seen one since the 1970s.

  14. Thank you for this article. Our current practice of receiving Holy Communion has made me so paranoid that I avoid sitting near the front of the church because of my preoccupation with finding fragments of our Lord on the floor while people are receiving.
    I was recently asked whether I would become an EM, as we had a shortage at a particular Mass. After prayerful consideration, I declined the request. I believe a certain level of chaos reigns currently, as most receive on the hand, some on the tongue, some kneeling, some come with arms folded, etc. We are Catholic! The reception of our Lord is the source and summit of our spiritual lives. Please bishops, lead us to the proper posture and disposition – on our knees, hands folded, host on tongue. As followers, we need this. And our Lord deserves it.

  15. Sorry guys. The greatest disrespect shown the greatest sacrament are the priests that have molested children and then consecrated the Eucharist! Place it in my hand. I protect and respect it. You have greater problems than this.

    • We can and must address all problems at once. Addressing the one does not mean disregarding the other.

    • Fr. Donald Kloster

      @Patti A classic Red Herring argument which is totally beside the point.

      So let me get this straight; you propose to take Holy Communion in your hands from the hands of a child molester? Ah, that would make 2 sinners touching the Host! Your argument falls flat on its face from so many angles.

      What if someone were to infer that all middle aged women were kleptomaniacs? With that logic you’d have to hurry up and consume that Host before some other woman stole it from you!

      BTW, there was a Donatist Heresy that reared its head over 1600 years ago. That error was roundly condemned. The sacraments are valid and efficacious ex opere operato (not dependent on the holiness of the cleric).

      Then too, I wonder how familiar you are with Luke 18:11. You compare yourself to one of the players in that verse.

  16. This is an interesting article that makes some good points. I converted to Catholicism in 2015 via the RCIA program. We received instruction from Eucharistic Ministers on how to properly receive the Eucharist and though on-the-tongue may have been mentioned I recall being taught to receive it in the hand. That is all I know from experience and what I am comfortable doing. I cannot speak for life-long Catholics but it seems that if this is an important issue to Church leadership, instruction on this could be included in the RCIA program.

    • John D. Horton

      RCIA is part of “New World Order” / Vatican II / Communist Catholicism.

      The purpose of Vatican II was to create a Communist “Year Zero” event where the past could be eliminated and a new fabricated religion (Vatican II Catholicism) could replace authentic Catholicism.

      In Vatican II Catholicism such as RCIA, you will not learn what the practice of the Catholic Church was prior to 1960s.

      Communion in the hand in the Catholic Church started as an abuse in Holland and Belgium in the 1960s which was ignored and then went mainstream in the 1970s – 1980s and is now part of the official rite.

      Communion in the hand is a symbol of the triumph of the Protestant Reformation in the Catholic Church because Communion in the Hand is the normal means of receiving Communion in many Protestant churches such as the Baptists.

  17. Jay,
    Firstly, the correct title is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The only Eucharistic Ministers are bishops and priests. If you learned the incorrect title from RCIA that is a criticism of the RCIA you received.
    Secondly, you are absolutely correct in that the option of receiving on the tongue should be made known during RCIA. Every Catholic should be aware of the option. However, it is not a matter of what the bishops think. It is an option sanctioned by the Church and every Catholic should be aware that they have the choice. Incidentally, the same point should also apply to children preparing for First Communion.

  18. Jesus told the Apostles to take the bread and eat … presumably they took it in their hands, no?

    • No-one knows. You can read and interpret it in the scriptures either way. And the apostles were not laymen, they were the first bishops of the Church.

    • Quite possibly but that does not necessarily mean we need to do it in the same way. Jesus never told his Apostles to write Gospels or Epistles but they did. And he told them: “Take nothing for the journey–no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt.” Does that mean bishops nowadays should never take an extra shirt when they go on their travels? There are things the Church has the power to change and things that the Church, including the Pope, has no power to change. I would imagine that the way we receive Communion comes into the former category. After all, the Church for many centuries did not allow the laity to receive Communion under both kinds and even the Second Vatican Council only authorised Communion under both kinds for the laity under very, very exceptional circumstances. Nowadays receiving Communion under both kinds is very common.

    • Fr. Donald Kloster

      @Linda and Fr. Joseph “Take and eat” comes from the Gospel of St. Matthew 26:26. As Barry pointed out, Jesus was talking to the Apostles, the First Bishops and the First Pope. He was not addressing the laity.

      Now lets talk about the editio typica. The official language of the Church is Latin, not English. That Latin word used is accipite, which is translated into English as “take,” it also has the meaning of “receive.” I firmly believe the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in Hebrew (St. Jerome testifies to a Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew) and even if not, Jesus would have spoke those words to his disciples in Hebrew or Aramaic. Either way, we get a translation through three foreign languages (if we include the Greek).

      Even here in Ecuador, when a native tells you “toma” it can either mean to take it into your hand or to ingest it by your mouth.

      Lastly, communion in the hand was condemned by two different Local Councils; Saragoza 380 AD and Rouen 650 AD. Communion on the tongue has never been disallowed for any reason. I could go on and on and will provide many other citations if anyone is interested.

  19. I am a EMOHC and when offering the Host to a frail elder in her home, I broke the Host in 1/4 sized piece for her as she could not take a whole Host. She was seated in a recliner and I was kneeling on one knee next to her. As I broke the host a small piece fragmented off and landed on my knee. I saw it there and was able to pick it up and consume the piece. The elder received the host on her tongue so it was not the manner of receiving in this case that caused potential loss of fragments, it was the process of breaking which Jesus clearly taught (He broke the bread) is it not expected to have fragmentation of pieces when bread when any form is broken? I am asking because we must break the host for many elder persons and invariably small fragments occur even when great care is used. I take care to break the host directly over the pyx and toward the pyx to prevent any fragment loss. Priests, what are your thought on this?

    • Fr. Donald Kloster

      My advice would be to try and break the Hosts as much over the pyx as possible. You should carry a purificator with you. The area where the Host particles have dropped at least needs to be wiped.

      If you cannot see the particle with the naked eye, it is not part of the Consecrated Host. We always use a paten here in my parish, but even with that precaution Hosts sometimes fall. Then too, no one here receives Communion in the hand. From my experience with communion in the hand, the Host ends up on the ground very few times either way (in the hand or on the tongue). The problem is all of the visible particles that end up in one’s hand each time one receives communion in the hand. That does not happen with communion on the tongue.

      When I was at the Josephinum (Seminary in Columbus Ohio), we had “substantial” bread that the seminary made and that we used for communion. It was extremely crumby. I always received on the tongue, but about half of the seminarians received in the hand and then you could actually watch them brushing their hands together afterwards! One pious sacristan was on his hands and knees after every Mass trying to pick up all of the crumbs…it was a huge sacrilege. Even with the hosts made by Cavanagh (80% of the USA market), at least 3 visible particles will remain in your hand and many times over 10.

      The Bishops of the world largely refuse to even discuss the above fact. To me, Communion in the Hand is ideologically driven. Those invested in wanting communion in the hand do not want to discuss the huge White Elephant in the room.

      • John D. Horton

        Communion in the hand is meant to:
        — desacralize the belief in the Real Presence, and,
        — make the Catholic practice of Communion similar to that of the Protestant communities.

        Historically, one of the first things to be thrown out the window by the Protestants in the 16th Century was the doctrine of the Real Presence which pretty much eliminated the rest of Catholic theology, i.e.:
        — no Real Presence = no need for an ordained priesthood,
        — no ordained priesthood = no need for an organized church structure or ecclesiology,
        — no organized church structure etc. = everyone is their own priest which is the teaching of Vatican II in “Gaudium et spes” and “Lumen Gentium” with their endless nonsense talk of the “People of God” (unless you are a Trady Catholic) meaning the laity don’t need a priest to get to heaven anymore and can “get saved” by reading the Bible just like any other Protestant.

  20. ….Also, I am astounded in the numbers of Catholics who purportedly do not believe in the Real Presence. What can we do to reverse this trend? It is one this to know this as a fact but we are responsible as Catholics to address this among our own.

    • John D. Horton

      After Vatican II, to be an up-to-date, “modern,” and “with-it,” priest, you had to “flush” Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and 40 Hours Adoration down the liturgical toilet.

      Even Trady parishes/chapels refuse to do the 40 Hours Adoration, so even though I am almost 60 years old, I have never been allowed to attend the 40 Hours Adoration anywhere in the world and I have been all over the place.

      One of my favorite Gregorian Chant long play records was put out by the Gregorian Institute of America entitled “40 Hours Adoration” by the seminarians of St. Mary’s Seminary, Houston TX in the 1950s or early 1960s. It had one of the best combinations of organ and voice that I have ever heard for Gregorian Chant.

  21. @Pontifex & Collaborators Moving to Render Can. 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law Irrelevant?https://goo.gl/wWrfau

  22. The regionalism that we are currently witnessing in the West, under the rubric of “discernment of situations,” is the result of a failure to discern both the nature of the sacraments and the situation of the Church. The old gods, sex, mammon, and death, are reviving and reasserting themselves as the gods of autonomy. They are beginning to press their hands on the faithless and the faithful alike. They are groping even for the holy sacraments, that they might defile them. In this situation, do we really need more talk about the internal forum and “the sacred ground of the other”?

    – DISCERNMENT OF SITUATION | We Must Not Forget the Sacramental Nature of the Church by Douglas Farrow, March 2017 – https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/03/discernment-of-situation

  23. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

    – ORIGINAL PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL – ORIGINAL PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL

  1. Pingback: CATHOLIC HEADLINES 10.1.17 – The Stumbling Block

  2. Pingback: MONDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: