Another Important Reason for Communion on the Tongue
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Why would we ever put the Lord at risk? Why would we ever treat him lightly? Why would we risk outrage and sacrilege?

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/breaking-archbishop-files-lawsuit-against-black-mass-organizers
    Thanked by 2Salieri teachermom24
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    "Contacted by the Register, Daniels struck a defiant tone. He called the lawsuit "frivolous" and said it was meant to intimidate him from holding the black mass. He said the archdiocese's efforts will backfire."

    I can't say I've ever been in a position to agree with a Satanist before, but all three elements of this statement seem entirely true. Especially the last part, which Abp. Coakley would do well to take into account.

    I also find it vaguely unsettling that "that wafer is our property!" should be the face the Church wishes to put on this (and on Christ).
    Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    I have always thought that receiving on the tongue was a grossly demeaning gesture to the laity. As an Anglican, I grew up receiving on the 'throne' made by my crossed palms and never ever received on the tongue... until... (get this!)... it became the mandatory practice within the Anglican Use and the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. I find this extremely unpleasant and irksome, the moreso since I can go to mass at a purely Roman rite parish and receive as I always did as an Anglican. I don't imagine that Jesus went about the upper room placing a small piece of the first sacrament on the tongues of his disciples. It is wonderful to have Him placed upon my palm and to take Him up with my tongue. Not so to have the person of the priestly caste spoon feed me. There is certainly nothing Anglican about it at all. Ultramontane, maybe?
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen CharlesW Gavin
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I don't find receiving on the tongue demeaning, just a Medieval invention that doesn't reflect early Church practice. Why the western communion practice was changed from hand to tongue, I am not sure. In the east we use intinction which is unsuited to communion in the hand.
    Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    Who knows the real hows and wherefores of this Mediaeval Invention!? One tale that I have often heard is that it was in response to abuse of the sacrament by some not fully civilised folk in newly evangelised barbarian lands. This, in particular, was said to be how the chalice came to be denied the lay order. We, however, are not not-fully-civilised barbarians. Another thing to thank Vatican II for.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Happily, the lawsuit maneuver seems to have brought the case to a rapid settlement: the lawyer for the person(s) who had illicitly obtained a host (so they say) surrendered it to a priest of the Archdiocese, with an agreement that the suit would be dropped.
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen teachermom24
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    I don't imagine that Jesus went about the upper room placing a small piece of the first sacrament on the tongues of his disciples.

    Though the lines Cibum turbae duodenae / se dat suis manibus do leave that possibility to the imaginations of others.

    Ultramontane, maybe?

    Perhaps. Pope St. Sixtus I: "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand."

    Who knows the real hows and wherefores of this Mediaeval Invention!?

    If the above quotation is authentic, then 115-125 A.D.

    We, however, are not not-fully-civilised barbarians.

    We are arguably worse.

    Another thing to thank Vatican II for.

    Or its Spirit™.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn francis Andrew_Malton
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    We are arguably worse.

    I do think much, much, better of most (but not all) people whom I am privileged to know.

    Or its Spirit

    All should by now be aware that I have no truck with the (imaginary) 'spirit of Vatican II', but... there are numerous things that have flowed from Vatican II (not its 'spirit') for which I am thankful
    Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Communion in the hand was not suggested or recommended by the Council. It started, alas, as a disobedient practice. Pope Paul VI yielded to the disobedience by granting indults to certain episcopal conferences to permit it.
    Thanked by 6M. Jackson Osborn Ben Aristotle Esguerra CHGiffen noel jones, aago Casavant Organist
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    FWIW, reception on the tongue is no sure barrier to the same blasphemy. I recall even as a child how kids would brag how long they could keep the host in their mouth without chewing it. Black Masses occurred before Vatican II (and probably more of them). YMMV.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    It really doesn't matter how the Church allows communion to be received, someone will find a way to abuse it.
    Thanked by 2Liam CHGiffen
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,045
    There's a "yuck" factor to a soggy Host that would discourage casual play with it (but would not discourage a real Satanist). There's plenty of ignorant irreverence going on that needs to be stopped, before we concern ourselves with the fairly-rare case of the Satanist.
    Thanked by 1MarkThompson
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,942
    Actually, it's not very difficult to keep the host from getting soggy. It's child's play...(child's play from the day when Sister Said not to chew that host....)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I know this is digression, so flame me if you must.
    I saw a real Satanist this week. He was dressed in black head to toe, had a knife, spoke with a British accent, delivered an evil manifesto, and kept an innocent man dressed in orange on his knees while forcing him to utter words against his faith and morals. Then the Satanist killed the man in orange.
    The "satantists" in Oklahoma City are pikers compared to that guy and his cabal.
    Thanked by 2Jeffrey Quick ClergetKubisz
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    It started, alas, as a disobedient practice.
    End of respect for authority.
    Pope Paul VI yielded to the disobedience
    End of authority.
    We are arguably worse
    End coming fast.
    Then the Satanist killed the man in orange.
    Proof.

    Repent! The Kingdom of God is at Hand!
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    I know this is digression, so flame me if you must.
    I saw a real Satanist this week. He was dressed in black head to toe, had a knife, spoke with a British accent, delivered an evil manifesto, and kept an innocent man dressed in orange on his knees while forcing him to utter words against his faith and morals. Then the Satanist killed the man in orange.
    The "satantists" in Oklahoma City are pikers compared to that guy and his cabal.


    I know that this is a reference to something in the news, but I'm slow today and I'm not making the connection.

    To what are you referring?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    melofluent is referring to terrorists in Iraq or Syria who killed journalist James Foley

    [note: I typed the wrong forum user name previously but have corrected it now. --RC]
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    It was actually the ol' curmudgeon digressor me, RC. Sorry, don't mean or want to derail the thread. But I thought we might want to provide some contrasting perspective to the whole Black Mass thing.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    black mass, murder... all very evil, one as bad as the other.
Add a Comment