When I was converted, I had a friend I worked with who I started going to Church with. I told her I needed to go to confession before I could receive, since I had not been to church for many years. It was right before Easter and they had one of those communal confession services that she told me I had to attend. I went, and asked where the confession line was, and she said "oh we don't have to do that anymore!" I was appalled. (she was NOT correct of course) Thank goodness there were several priests there that let you come up and confess to them, and even though it was in the open and hardly anyone did it, I was able to tell him my sins and be absolved. I then of course found when the REAL confessions were, and officially re-joined my parish. What in the world was the purpose of having these "communal confession services" before Christmas and Easter?? Was this just to confuse people as my friend was obviously confused? We still have them in our town, and all the parishes have a different night, and it is announced ahead by all the Priests here. I just want to raise my hand and say "remember, this does NOT replace the individual sacrament of confession!"
We have hope and may God forgive me for mentioning the above and judging I am taking this opportunity to publicly announce how wrong I can be, I was concerned that because of the heavy rain that the mass at struell would have to be abandoned but as always Jesus provides knock and he will answer.. I asked Cannon Rogan for help in an alternative venue if the rain caused us to cancel, he came back to me just now and has organised a chapel 2 minutes away from struell to be open and ready for us if we need it..Thank you Cannon Rogan for your kind support..May God forgive me for being wrong and judgemental.. How embarrassed I was when he ended the conversation with well done and God love you..
I am sorry John I have gone and forgotten the date and time of the mass. I hope I am still able to go , but my car will not be ready till Saturday morning ( I hope)
I was reading in the revelations to venerable Mary of Agreda about the manner in which Our Lady first received her Son in Holy Communion and how she who was without sin humiliated herself to the dust . "There are no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kind of arguments against it" -Dietrich von Hildebrand "Communion in the hand should be rejected" "Whatever you can do to stop communion in the hand will be blessed by God. " -Fr. John Hardon, S.J. This is a good article about communion in the hand and how it came about... http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616
I must have been away somewhere when this thread started and I have only just found it. It is a subject very 'close to my heart'. All the points I would have raised appear to have been covered but I would like to emphasise some points and re-tell my story. The fact that this practice of Communion in the hand began in Holland and Belgium, who had the most 'progressive' hierarchies in the world in the sixties and seventies, should strike a warning note to every Catholic as should the facts that, since the practice began no Pope has been seen to offer Communion in the hand and the fact that it was the notorious Cardinal Bernadin who 'steered' this innovation through the US Bishops' Conference. The majority of those attending Mass at my parish (especially Saturday and midweek Masses) are middle aged or old (as I am) and I am always surprised/shocked that almost all of them receive in the hand. When the innovation began, I was away from the Church and when I was reconciled everyone at the Church I attended received in the hand and I didn't realise that there was still a choice. The first time I did receive in the hand, I felt very unhappy about it but those feelings subsided over time as I became used to it somewhat. The change came when I read about how this innovation had been introduced and I decided that I was going to be the 'odd one out'. I felt so much happier, even though the priest seemed surprised and less than happy. On one occasion, although I was standing there clearly indicating that I wanted to receive on the tongue, the priest just reached down, opened my hand and dropped the host onto it! The same priest must have re-considered because a few weeks later, he told us at the end of Mass that we could receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue but he mistakenly told someone who approached him afterwards that Vatican II had introduced this innovation, it did not (if our priests don't know the truth, we can't expect the people to know). One of our priests currently uses four 'Extraordinary Ministers' to distribute the Host when he offers Mass for maybe 120 people but the younger priest in the parish uses only one to distribute the Host and two to distribute the Blood. Eventually I noticed a couple who receive on the tongue and who only receive the Host from the Priest, so I started to do the same and again I feel much happier doing so as it has only been touched by consecrated hands. I loved the story (above) of the ten year old surprising the priest by receiving on the tongue, what a good, brave boy. Bless him for his respect to Our Lord in the Eucharist. As to communal absolution services (or whatever they are called), a recent Scottish Cardinal called Grey (not the disgraced O'Brien). Contacted the Vatican and lobbied for these serviced to be accepted as a substitute for private confession. He claimed (and we must accept the word of a Cardinal, I suppose) that he had the majority support of the Bishops of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland in this request. He was reported to be very unhappy when the Vatican said 'no' and complained that this was a denial of 'collegiality' in the Church (God help us!). I suspect that the Dutch and Belgians didn't bother to ask.
I am in the US and I have never liked receiving in the hand. In fact I have never chewed it with my teeth. I always have let it dissolve so as not to gnash His most Holy Body. Even as a little boy I would never chew it. Now I try to always genuflect and make the sign of the cross and take on the tongue. One of these days I will have the courage to kneel before the priest and holdup the line and give The Lord the respect He deserves.
Hate to worry you, Andy but my understanding is that the host must be swallowed and not merely allowed to dissolve. I am no expert and could be wrong but I remember being told this at school - that was in the fifties - we were also told not to allow the host to come into contact with the teeth, so of course chewing was out of the question. I notice people chewing after receiving and it doesn't look very respectful. Another thing is that we were told that we must not eat after receiving without first drinking water. And finally, we are supposed to give some sign of respect before receiving, I bow and I recall seeing one person genuflect but most people don't seem to give any signal of respect before receiving. Perhaps there is someone on the forum who could provide a link to a reliable authority on these matters. I haven't been able to find one.
Steve, I do genuflect and never use my teeth. That is what I meant by dissolving. Once places in my mouth, I let it dissolve a little with my saliva and then swallow. It really bothers me to see people chewing on it like a cow chewing on grass.
Another thing that bothers me or saddens me is to see how few will take the blood at communion. I was at church and saw it again this morning. This is a church that is very old school in the way they perform the mass and how the church is still set up with the way the churches used to be set up prior to Vatican II and yet there are still many who do not take the blood. They will genuflect before the body and take it in the mouth and not hand and yet skip the blood. How can one even do that? Yes I know we all have germs and this may bother others but for me I would take getting a cold any day over skipping the blood. Getting sick is a small sacrafice and price to pay versus what our Lord endured in His Passion for US!! I saw a devout man today wearing a brown scapular and staying after mass for some quiet adoration but yet he chose to skip taking the blood. Again...how could he do this? What are your thoughts on this?
I can understand this Andy. When I was young, only the priest took the Blood. We pre-Vatican II Catholics were taught that the practice of distributing both elements to the laity was a Protestant innovation (which it was) and which was a denial that the Host was of itself the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The priest does not take consecrated wine when visiting a sick person, so why do we need it when we can walk? They got on without it for centuries and no-one is suggesting that they were being deprived of some part of Christ. I sometimes don't take the Blood if there is a long queue which would substantially shorten my time at prayer after receiving.
I did not know that Steve but I wonder why not taking the blood simply because Jesus offered it to His disciples at the last supper and asked to do both in memory of Him not just one of the 2. I see the point that it is all continued in the host but again what about the second part of the last supper? His blood was poured out for all so I will gladly never turn it down when it is poured out in a chalice for us to share at church.
Well why do it if it is not necessary? We were taught for several centuries that it is not and the Church does not insist that we do in order to make a valid Communion.
