Yes to bringing back communion rails. Yes to greater reverence and renewal of tradition.
@icouch3 жыл бұрын
nobody cares
@CatholicNeil3 жыл бұрын
The Ordinariate uses the rail
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
early Church received in the hand with no communion rails, so now what?
@filsdelleche65923 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 keep in mind that the early Church was living in persecution. The practice of Communion on the tongue with altar rails and pattens was developed over time to increase reverence and remove the risk of desecration for our Lord. I wrote a more extensive comment a little earlier, it discusses another defense for communion on the tongue. I do encourage reading the whole thing.
@st.michaelthearchangel77743 жыл бұрын
@@icouch Wow. Openly proud and arrogant much?
@sungyewtiingpaul61303 жыл бұрын
I am Malaysian catholic. Personally, I believe receive the Eucharist by tongue and on knee is act of our of humility. Among other attributes, Our Lord is All Pure and Holy and He deserves our deepest respect, worship, adoration, praise, thanksgiving and honor. Ingratitude hurts our Lord.
@fmayer15073 жыл бұрын
Outstanding comment!
@winall93 жыл бұрын
Me too but now since the pandemic, priests refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue
@winall93 жыл бұрын
@@alveodas nothing much the laity can do right
@lorenzobianchini44153 жыл бұрын
I totally agree with everything you say not least because it pleases me as you speak from the heart
@malgorzatanadowska26803 жыл бұрын
I am from Poland and we were always receiving Eucharist on the knee and on the tongue ,by consecrated hand of the priest .First in my life I saw Americans to receive Holly Communion on the hand and in my opinion it is degradation of the church and disrespectful to our Lord Jesus Christ.Now pandemic is used to force all people on the earth to follow this terrible custom 🥲by free masons order!
@karenpatotafounderofababys17823 жыл бұрын
Respectfully, I feel a difference in the Eucharist at the TLM. Kneeling and on the tongue is a fitting way to receive our Lord. I've seen the priests at the TLM, deliver the Eucharist efficiently with everyone kneeling at the Communion rail. The TLM attendance has tripled over lockdown, by the grace of God.
@mgglorym15712 жыл бұрын
You can simply say TLM instead of TLM Masses
@mgglorym15712 жыл бұрын
TLM means Traditional Latin Mass
@karenpatotafounderofababys17822 жыл бұрын
@@mgglorym1571 👌
@barbaraw52642 жыл бұрын
By the fruits you will recognise them.
@barbaraw52642 жыл бұрын
Totley not agreed with receiving Eucharist on the hand. No explanation. And early Church before when gave on the hand people put some cloth and they took Eucharist with the tongue.
@ryanjane44242 жыл бұрын
I’ve been attending a Tridentine, traditional Latin Mass in Arizona. it is FULL of young families. So, beautiful. I love it.
@EdwardGraveline11 ай бұрын
I live in Arizona too but in Sierra Vista- only one large parish here and a much smaller one both with Norvus Ordo Masses. But our three priests are very respectful and honor that Lord at our Masses. Our parish has confession 7 days a week twice a day and an Adoration chapel open 24/7 It really is a great parish
@ojciecchrzestny44297 ай бұрын
very smart woman hope is in You beautiful young people
@picaflor61525 ай бұрын
Me too in Ottawa
@CharlottePrattWilson3 жыл бұрын
When our priest allowed kneelers for receiving Holy Communion this last month, I went back to my seat and sobbed because it made me realize exactly who I was receiving. The body and blood of Our Lord Jesus! Of course we should kneel and receive on the tongue.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
Jorge Bergoglio said that Vat II is the Magesterium, but Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility, thus the TLM is the proper mass, per the infallibility the Council of Trent possesses. Based upon this, if VII is the current Magesterium, then it does not possess infallibility. Since the Magesterium has, at least up until Vat II possessed infallibility, then Vatican II would be a false Magesterium. Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic. [The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself, statements from the popes on the status of the council show it was not the intent to make new dogma, dogma cannot be created accidentaly, and claiming a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic because it was titled as such is just a positivist argument.] [H/t Christopher Marlowe.] 7th Session of the Council of Trent, changing the rites: Canon 13. "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." Ergo, Vat II is pastoral. Ergo Sum, given the following Lumen Gentium of Vat II, we are to follow the Council of Trent: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” The Magesterium and fallibility do not exist together simultaneously, but the Magesterium and infallibility do exist together simultaneously, thus the Council of Trent and the Magesterium exist together simultaneously.
@CharlottePrattWilson3 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for taking time to send me your response. You are very learned. I wish more people would read and study our Catholic religion and history.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@CharlottePrattWilson I'm so happy that I'm able to do so; to God be the glory!
@museluvr3 жыл бұрын
Since beginning to explore the church about August of last year, I've had to receive blessings each Mass before finally, 4/3, being baptized. I was fine until receiving first communion.. as soon as my Lord hit my tongue, I literally shot back to my face, buried my face in my hands and sobbed. So, so long to wait to receive Him. The cradle Catholics and those lukewarm need to recall how precious this gift is to us. His sacrifice to bring us home due to OUR sin. God bless Freedom..
@CharlottePrattWilson3 жыл бұрын
@@museluvr That is beautiful! If only other Catholics would understand and believe who they are receiving! Thank you for your response! God bless you!🙏🏻❤️
@user-yq3co2qs6b3 жыл бұрын
My personal opinion is that my hands are not consecrated, so I can not touch the Body of our Lord. I prefer to receive kneeling down and on the tongue.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@paulasmith2426 Nuns are not allowed to do what you say, secondly doing so in ignorance on their part is material heresy, not full bore heresy, as decided for centuries by the church, and God has winked at sin before but once one knows better... And one can be young and sincere and still go against hundreds of years of established church teaching. The moment you entertain doing that you become a protestant. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth". St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors. Francis is promoting things contrary to popes, councils, etc. He promotes invincible ignorance when the Apostles, Apostlic Fathers, ECF's and past them didn't, Jesus Christ said one must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God, St. Paul wrote that God commands all men everywhere to repent, wrote that there is no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved, etc. And the modernists should be ashamed at pretending they want to go back because it was the early church and using that as a shield because they and others aren't saying anything about how to stop sacrilege, which church history shows why receiving in the hand was stopped.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@paulasmith2426 As another person here, A Retrograde, said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostles. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO. 2 synods, one council, one ecumenical council, at least one pope, most likely more, the Council of Trent, and hundreds of years of Apostoluc Tradition overrides Francis and Vatican II.
@malcolmkirk33433 жыл бұрын
Your tongue is not consecrated either. There is a first taste of salt with a prayer that the child is "no longer to hunger for want of heavenly food,..." It has naught to do with consecrating the mouth so as to receive the Holy Eucharist. See the Latin Tridentine Baptismal Rite (Part 1; section on The Imposition of Salt). Again, I ask, if your hands cannot receive the Host because they are not consecrated, how can your mouth? The command of the Lord for BOTH species was "TAKE, eat..." and "TAKE, drink..." The entire "up-ing the sacredness to prevent abuse still runs against Christ's command for His people to "Take. Eat....Take. Drink." Additionally, one might note that Christ's COMMAND to His communicants begins with the key word, "take," which indicates the taking is neither the eating, nor the drinking. It is the handling which preceded the eating or drinking. Again, Christ was not handing them Communion wafers, but passing the flat bread. The "sop" which was dipped in by Jesus and Judas would have been the charoset (a paste, or relish mixture of figs, nuts, spices, wine, and honey). They weren't dipping their bread in the cup of wine Jesus consecrated. The disciples also would not have been kneeling (and certainly not at an alter rail) when they received the bread and cup from the Lord. The Church has created many practices and rules to make a point regarding the sacredness of the body and blood of Christ. But those practices making theological points are not the matter itself. Jesus did not walk around saying, "Don't touch me! I am consecrated to God! In fact, I am God! So, look. But don't touch! Stand back, all you unconsecrated sinners!" Nor did he say to his disciples, "Hands off the bread I blessed! I washed your feet, not your hands!" Nor did He personally distribute the elements to each of them. Again, we should note that the bread had to be BROKEN (22:19). We see the same with the wine. It is passed, not personally handed to each of them (Mt. 26:27). Also, the Church requires fasting an hour before taking Communion. But that is an innovation. For in Mk. 14:18 we see the disciples were RECLINING and eating. In fact, Jesus gave Communion WHILE they were eating! (Mk. 14:22). You see, the Church has created many rules/laws to emphasize the sacredness, the respect, the honor one is to have when taking Communion. But those rules are not inherent to, or necessary for Communion. They reclined at table. Today we sit at tables when eating. But I don't hear any clamoring for reclining during Communion. They passed the bread taring pieces off (at least in those days), today we have a priest distributing. Still, where is the distribution of the sacred wine?
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@malcolmkirk3343 When one attends confession before mass the tongue is consecrated as one has been absolved of all sins. Secondly, that and receiving the Eucharist, doubly consecrates the tongue.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@paulasmith2426 The Apostle Paul wrote that God once winked at sin but now commands all men to repent. His writings and the rest of the NT show this is for Jews, Gentiles, in accordance with Jesus Christ' teaching to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to *every creature*". This overrides Pope Francis who said the following: A.) "It is not licit to convince them of your faith. Prosyletism is the strongest venom against the ecumenical path". Francis speaking to a group of Lutherans, Paul VI hall 10/13/2016 "We should never prosyletize the Orthodox." C.) Francis has repeatedly said that non-Catholics, schismatics, protestants, etc, all have martyrs, which contradicts Pope Eugene IV AND the Council of Florence, and the centuries and centuries of precedentand church tradition they built upon then at this council, all of which overrides Francis as they have precedence before him and he is subject to councils before him: Nicean, Florence, Trent, doesn't matter, he is subject to them.
@noside303 жыл бұрын
Have not taken the Holy Eucharist for about 25yrs due to not being worthy and doubts about my faith. Now that I repented and acknowledge the true and ever living God, the Father Almighty, my tears overflows as I take the Holy Eucharist with my tongue for I do not feel at ease of holding Him with my unclean hands. Praising and thanking Him as I kneel in the pew😭. I have yet gotten used to receiving Him, probably till then the tears won’t stop. May God bless us all!🙏🏼
@alhilford23453 жыл бұрын
That's wonderful. I am so happy for you!
@RestoreJustice67510 ай бұрын
All it takes to be worthy to receive our Lord is to make a good confession, be a baptized Catholic an be in a state of grace. No one is worthy, and our feeling worthy is not necessary. Praise God that you are reconnecting with this great gift of Jesus in the Eucharist.
@mayragomez42223 жыл бұрын
about 2 months ago i felt a deep profound feeling that took over my body where i couldnt move at the moment of the consecration of the holy eucharist i began to cry uncontrollably i felt the holy spirit presence and when i walked to recieve it i fell to my knees and opened my mouth i sobbed uncontrollably and i am thankful the priest did not deny me the holy eucharist on the tongue when i got back to my seat i fell to my knees and cried sobbed till my face touched the floor at that moment i made a promise to the lord that i will never recieve him in my hands only by mouth and on my knees for he is truly present in the holy eucharist for the past year i had doubts of the sacrement of the holy eucharist and believing that jesus was present there but i truly wanted to believe and i thank the lord for opening my heart and eyes for i will never see it any other way but in true humbleness and in faith for the lord is present in the holy eucharist and i asked the lord forgiveness for all the days i was ignorant and lukewarm in faith. Lord have mercy in those taking this so lightly and not seeing the severity of the matter how much pain and suffering puts you lord seeing your children do nothing. 🙏🏼😢
@RosieLass3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for sharing your story. ❤️ I will remember it.
@jeanonyeagwara49492 жыл бұрын
I like your story. Tku. I wish to open my mouth when I get to Fr tomorrow
@museluvr2 жыл бұрын
Beautiful testimony. I more times then not get teary eyed as the Eucharist is prepared, and when brand new (under a year old Catholic, praise God) I would sob before truly understanding our Lord was there, with us all. With work, I sometimes have to leave when they begin Adoration, and I cry walking out to the car. If I could, I'd sit there for hours with Him, but know He is with me no matter where I am. Still... God bless you.
@mayragomez42222 жыл бұрын
@@museluvr amen! where ever you are adore him. when the church was closed because of the pandemic i listen to mass at home and i felt the holy spirit in my home i sobbed un able to move just feeling peace at the moment of the consegration it was such a peaceful feeling and i felt the understanding of God knowing how much i wanted to be present in church but couldnt be there. God sees our hearts and true intentions in really wanted to have a connection with God. seek and you will find peace in the lord wherever you are. peace be with you and God bless you always 🙏🏼
@sharonjohnson72922 жыл бұрын
Thank you dear sister. You are blessed . Beautiful testimony Lord help us to reverently receive you in.our hearts
@nereidaluna18933 жыл бұрын
What about this: I was told by a canonical lawyer and priest that neither a priest nor a Bishop can deny their people the right that Holy Mother Church has granted us, which is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. He stated this during the pandemic. In his parish we are able to receive on the hand and on the tongue and, I'll say, the majority of communicants receive on the tongue. Praise God for this parish!
@herbstzeitlose16163 жыл бұрын
anything is possible under the pretext of Corona.
@frankie.m.pepper69743 жыл бұрын
It would be good to have a resource pool, to have documents to take to the Bishops who disallow their people communion, or disallow following conscience.
@johnobeid673 жыл бұрын
@Nereida Luna you are lucky! I mentioned (very respectfully) to a priest at a parish I go to that “Our Orthodox brethren still receive our Lord by the common spoon, why are Catholics not able to receive on the tongue?” His response was “well, may be you should just go and join them”!!!! That’s the Novus Ordo for you!
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
your canon lawyer is disobedient to the pope - that's a sin for sure
@johnobeid673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 Does that include heretic popes such as Honorius I and Francis?
@patrickshaughnessy42043 жыл бұрын
Pray the Rosary everyday for those souls who can not pray for themselves
@gma9043 жыл бұрын
Thank you for that reminder Patrick.
@deborahmahan22073 жыл бұрын
I made Spiritual Communions, and then one day a priest and deacon told me, if I would wait till the end of the line, I could receive on the tongue. I am still doing that now. I read that to make a sacrifice out of love, for the Lord, was pleasing to the Lord. I longed for the Holy Eucharist and it seems that He was pleased, for His Providence granted me access to Him while kneeling and on the tongue, by a priest or deacon. Praise the Lord in His Abundant Love and God bless you all.
@michaelkern56082 жыл бұрын
The Last are the First in the Kingdom of Heaven
@barbarapatenaude44853 жыл бұрын
If I understood Fr Goring correctly, reverence and love as well as the disposition of the soul and heart is what is most important when receiving the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
@ColonelStraker2 жыл бұрын
I, too, adore Fr. Mark's Holy Spirit-filled insight. What he "missed" here, however, is to ask - WHO do we trust?! God or man?! Obviously, many Clergy and laypeople are listening and obeying man. How can anyone think they could possibly get a virus "of any kind", by receiving on the tongue!! NO hand will EVER be clean enough .. and it leaves way too much room for abuse. So, only on the tongue and, yes, altar rails returned, so we are "dropped to our knees". When the church closed down, over the past 2 years, they said to everyone (and without a word) 'we don't really truly believe!' We should have had MORE Masses said, rather than none, thereby leaving our churches (where God is fully present) empty. It baffles my mind. Yet, as always, "follow the money". Govt paid Catholic. Churches and others to shut down. They obviously couldn't say no.
@mistyviolet38252 жыл бұрын
Amen 🙏🏻
@SciVias9172 жыл бұрын
And since we are creatures of both soul and body, our body's position should fully reflect our soul's disposition, yes?
@lucillejerome55112 жыл бұрын
I agree as far as this goes, there's more to the story as presented by Fr. Goring. It is possible also to receive our Lord with love and reference in the hands that he created and have been sacramentalized. Reverence was shown at the Last Supper with breaking bread in their hands/drinking wine and also much later until the Church decided this wasn't good enough for God. We (including me) need to be careful we don't judge others with this among other current issues confronting our church family. Some other religions are looking on with glee as we judge each other and try to turn the clock back to an idealized time. We can find over our 2000 plus history statements by many saints, priests, and laymen to lead us to one or another viewpoint so for me that is not the crux of the matter. What does the church teach after years of investigation and weighing all the facts? I'm tired of hearing opinions that tend to proselytize only one way as if they have the one and only answer - kneeling at an altar rail (that didn't exist in our earlier history and makes no concession for the disabled and elderly) and only taking the Eucharist on the tongue. Our church so far begs to differ. There is room in the Church's and God's heart for every Catholic (who has gone to confession to confess mortal sins and repeated venial sins) to receive Him.
@buzztrucker7 ай бұрын
Thank you. Here I though I could have some better standing before God because I received his body & blood kneeling on my tongue vs. in my hands.
@thamill38263 жыл бұрын
Agree with this priest wholeheartedly!!!! I really hope we begin having Communion on the tongue kneeling again
@ColonelStraker2 жыл бұрын
Amen!!! 👑+✝️+🔥=❤ As much as I adore Fr. Mark's Holy Spirit-filled insight, what he "missed" here, however, is to ask - WHO do we trust?! God or man?! Obviously, many Clergy and laypeople are listening and obeying man. How can anyone think they could possibly get a virus "of any kind", by receiving on the tongue!! NO hand will EVER be clean enough .. and it leaves way too much room for abuse. So, only on the tongue and, yes, altar rails returned, so we are "dropped to our knees". When the church closed down, over the past 2 years, they said to everyone (and without a word) 'we don't really truly believe!' We should have had MORE Masses said, rather than none, thereby leaving our churches (where God is fully present) empty. It baffles my mind. Yet, as always, "follow the money". Govt paid Catholic. Churches and others to shut down. They obviously couldn't say no.
@timworthington891 Жыл бұрын
not everyone is able to kneel.
@buzztrucker7 ай бұрын
There are Catholic churches that have Communion on tongue. If that's what one desires as a Catholic more often than not they can find a church that does so.
@debbiepostlewaite14753 жыл бұрын
Yes bring back the rails. More reverence needed.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth". St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
@jlgibbo61163 жыл бұрын
Our church brought back the rails like 12years ago.
@duncanholding7483 жыл бұрын
Amen
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
Jorge Bergoglio said that Vat II is the Magesterium, but Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility, thus tlhe TLM is the proper mass due to the Council of Trent possessing infallibility. Based upon this, if VII is the current Magesterium, then it does not possess infallibility. Since the Magesterium has, at least up until Vat II possessed infallibility, then Vatican II would be a false Magesterium. Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic. [The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself, statements from the popes on the status of the council show it was not the intent to make new dogma, dogma cannot be created accidentaly, and claiming a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic because it was titled as such is just a positivist argument.] [H/t Christopher Marlowe.] 7th Session of the Council of Trent, changing the rites: Canon 13. "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema." Ergo, Vat II is pastoral. Ergo Sum, given the following Lumen Gentium of Vat II, we are to follow the Council of Trent: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which *all* are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity* with, that is, the *Revelation* which as *written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the *legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” The Magesterium and fallibility do not exist together simultaneously, but the Magesterium and infallibility do exist together simultaneously, thus the Council of Trent and the Magesterium exist together simultaneously.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@Jason This isn't my assumption, as, again, the following say this: Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said that Vat II does not possess notes of infallibility. Pope Paul VI an John XIII said Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and Benedict XVI affirmed that VII was not dogmatic. [The so-called "dogmatic constitutions" published by VII show a contradiction, further proof it is not dogmatic given that it is axiomatic dogma cannot contradict itself.
@brigittedecdumee98943 жыл бұрын
Holy Communion used to be given in the hand as we can see here: "In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen." Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315 - 386), Catechetical Lectures. Whether we receive the Holy Eucharist on our tongue or in our hand, what matters is HOW we receive it.
@gi.l.50436 ай бұрын
I'm so thankful to read this. I'm not able to kneel, would have to ask for help pestering others, but started feeling uncomfortable not receiving the Holy Eucharist on my tongue.
@dashishamarysuting3 жыл бұрын
I don't feel comfortable receiving on my hand. I did twice and it's the most uncomfortable moments I feel in my life . If we're on Church , why fear the virus? God is powerful ❤️🙏 Don't doubt God
@jasonattwood62893 жыл бұрын
We were warned at Fatima to not follow the stars of heaven (meaning priests) dragged by the tail of the dragon (meaning serving the devil. We were also warned of the Great Apostasy in the Church beginning at the top of the Church. If the Bishop in link below had a commission from an enemy of the Church such as Satan himself or the head of free masons he could have not done a better job to destroy Catholic Faith in his country! kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYvZd3tuhtd6n5I Its defined Dogma that the host is the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ! God has proven this. www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html Providence, which disposes all thing wisely and sweetly, has offered us book The Distribution of Communion on the hand, by Federico Bortoli, just after having celebrated the centenary of the Fatima apparitions. Before the apparition of the Virgin Mary, in the Spring of 1916, the Angel of Peace appeared to Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, and said to them: “Do not be afraid, I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.” (...) In the Spring of 1916, at the third apparition of the Angel, the children realized that the Angel, who was always the same one, held in his left hand a chalice over which a host was suspended. (...) He gave the holy Host to Lucia, and the Blood of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, who remained on their knees, saying: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.” The Angel prostrated himself again on the ground, repeating the same prayer three times with Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.The Angel of Peace therefore shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. The prayer of reparation dictated by the Angel, unfortunately, is anything but obsolete. But what are the outrages that Jesus receives in the holy Host, for which we need to make reparation? In the first place, there are the outrages against the Sacrament itself: the horrible profanations, of which some ex-Satanist converts have reported and offer gruesome descriptions. Sacrilegious Communions, not received in the state of God’s grace, or not professing the Catholic faith (I refer to certain forms of the so-called “intercommunion”), are also outrages. Secondly, all that could prevent the fruitfulness of the Sacrament, especially the errors sown in the minds of the faithful so that they no longer believe in the Eucharist, is an outrage to Our Lord. The terrible profanations that take place in the so-called ‘black masses’ do not directly wound the One who in the Host is wronged, ending only in the accidents of bread and wine.Of course, Jesus suffers for the souls of those who profane Him, and for whom He shed the Blood which they so miserably and cruelly despise. But Jesus suffers more when the extraordinary gift of his divine-human Eucharistic Presence cannot bring its potential effects into the souls of believers. And so we can understand that the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. This robbery attempt follows two tracks: the first is the reduction of the concept of ‘real presence.’ Many theologians persist in mocking or snubbing the term ‘transubstantiation’ despite the constant references of the Magisterium (…)Let us now look at how faith in the real presence can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa. Receiving Communion on the hand undoubtedly involves a great scattering of fragments. On the contrary, attention to the smallest crumbs, care in purifying the sacred vessels, not touching the Host with sweaty hands, all become professions of faith in the real presence of Jesus, even in the smallest parts of the consecrated species: if Jesus is the substance of the Eucharistic Bread, and if the dimensions of the fragments are accidents only of the bread, it is of little importance how big or small a piece of the Host is! The substance is the same! It is Him! On the contrary, inattention to the fragments makes us lose sight of the dogma. Little by little the thought may gradually prevail: “If even the parish priest does not pay attention to the fragments, if he administers Communion in such a way that the fragments can be scattered, then it means that Jesus is not in them, or that He is ‘up to a certain point’.”The second track on which the attack against the Eucharist runs is the attempt to remove the sense of the sacred from the hearts of the faithful. (...) While the term ‘transubstantiation’ points us to the reality of presence, the sense of the sacred enables us to glimpse its absolute uniqueness and holiness. What a misfortune it would be to lose the sense of the sacred precisely in what is most sacred! And how is it possible? By receiving special food in the same way as ordinary food. (…) 2. Since the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ Himself Who is true God and true Man we are bound by the First Commandment to reverence and adore Him. To do the opposite would be the sin of sacrilege. 3. Fatima is a divine apparition, the Angel instructed the children to receive Holy Communion kneeled and on the tongue. Are we more worthy than Angels to receive standing and on the hand? 4. Isn't it said ''Philippians 2:10-11 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So at the name Jesus we should bow but to receive Our Lord present in body, blood, soul and divinity we stand and receive him on the hands? 5. It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church.6. Is it not true that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest? (C.J.C. 845,1; Council of Trent 13 c.8, 22 c.1) St. Thomas tells us: Accordingly as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priests, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.” S.T. III, q. 82 a. 3. 6. And is it not true that the minister is responsible to God for the proper administration of the Sacraments that he personally administers? But some priests ask themselves, How can a priest be held responsible by God, if God (and the Church) does not also give to us priests the authority to dispense this Most Holy Sacrament according to God’s law and the universal law of the Church?” 7. And is not the universal law of the Latin Rite still that the Consecrated Host be placed on the tongue of the communicant as the document Memoriale Domini (1969) says:“...the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the Faithful. The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests, and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed.” 8. St Paul says ''Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.'' So if the law of God states that Holy Communion should not be given in the hand and not from so called ''extraordinary ministers'' which is a masonic term, Our Lord who is all knowing will not change his mind because of a virus. Communion on the tongue is the law of God and of the Church. 9. Our Lord also said ''Matthew 16:18 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.” After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.… So how can you think it is possible to get contaminated by a virus from receiving Holy Communion? Isn't that lack of faith? That's not really a sign of belief and trust. Peace with you! Queen Of Heaven and Earth's Special Militia
@elainegoolsby99023 жыл бұрын
Amen! Stand firm in your faith!🙏🌹💖
@elainegoolsby99023 жыл бұрын
To this priest: It is the law! Communion on the hand should not be allowed, and it has done harm to those who know this, and feel forced to receive in the hand. The priest should honor the holy way of receiving, on the tongue. Bring back the altar rails; every knee shall bend. I am so blessed to be able to drive an hour to attend Latin Mass, knell at the altar rail, and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Praise God and thanks be to God that my priest will only give Communion on the tongue at the altar rail, unless the person is unable to walk to the altar, then this holy priest takes Communion to the person and that person receives it on the tongue! We are so blessed!!! 🙏🙏🙏🌹🌹💒💒
@debbihutton35683 жыл бұрын
Agree wholeheartedly with bringing back communion rails.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
B.) Protestabt heretics like Martin Luther then and today deny adherence to all Popes and Councils past in 1-9 and think only the pope now matters. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francisband/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic abd like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1 through 9 above.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
C.) Like books in a bookshelf, the first Popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope and not be an anti-pope It is modernism and prorestabt heretics like Luther who say deny all previous popes and councils, and popes that agreed with these councils in 1-9 above. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even up to the 1st one, St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition, thus a diminishing of the papacy which would make the Orthodox ascendant. But there is neither a diminishing or increasing of the papacy. But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension previoys Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition and the previous councils building upon councils before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back to Nicaea and ultimately to Sacred Scripture. Heretics and schismatics like Luther though say to deny all popes and councils in 1-9.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 again, Ray - you make no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma --> disciplines change -- receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 You constantly say along the lines "you don't know anything" yet never prove step by step, with expounded sound, cogent arguments, what you claim you know but don't as many here have cleaned your clock and you run away. You have said again and again to me "your move" so this is a game to you, sadly, so grow up, Sissy on one of these called you out saying you used inappropriate language and Ad Homs. You can't even figure out that Sacred Scripture and Tradition from 30 AD until now are what the councils and popes relied upon that I referenced and when they say only certain people may touch sacred vessels, you can be excommunicated over certain things, etc, etc, it is forever. These popes then who worked with these councils and what they all established over the millenia spoke for God and it is forever. 1-9 all link together. Trent, #9, anchored 1-9 in the New Testament citing "Apostolic Tradition" thus for you to challrnge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul in the NT. 1-9 are now irreversible.
@kevinbirge21303 жыл бұрын
I converted to Catholicism after reading the Church Fathers. I want to see that Church.
@johnpolcintertiarypaul63693 жыл бұрын
You will find the traditional Church. Go to the traditional Latin Mass, for example, the SSPX.
@Jess_ica29273 жыл бұрын
I'd recommend FSSP or ICKSP as they are in full communion with Rome (unlike SSPX)
@PatrickSteil3 жыл бұрын
Yes!!!!! Agree Kevin!!
@lexodius3 жыл бұрын
We have that Church today. It's the same Church.
@PatrickSteil3 жыл бұрын
@@lexodius When I read about the early Church Fathers and the Saints I read of people who are 100% trying to honor God with their heart, mind, soul and strength in everything they do. Today, we are too scared to approach the altar without a mask on. The world is crumbling around us because everyone has "their own truth", while the Catholic Church has The Truth - His Truth and is not reaching out to proclaim this and defend this (except for rare priests and lay people). The Church today should be gearing up and reaching out to the lost of the World who desperately need to know the Truth that comes from the Creator of Truth itself. That is the Church I am longing for and looking for.
@marymcgrory93122 жыл бұрын
I just can’t receive communion in the hand and the decision comes from my heart. Spiritual communion is a small sacrifice as being in the presence of Jesus is so healing. All through the pandemic I have found priests who understand this. I make no judgment on any of this so I feel it’s a very personal calling to follow my heart and this has brought me so close to the Lord.
@crazedream2742 Жыл бұрын
there is no virus in the house of God..why priest and the church hesitates the power of our Lor Jesus Christ..so for me recieving the Holy Eucharist in tounge is the most appropriate way of being a Catholic..recieving the Holy Eucharist in hands is not god to see for so many reasons..i always want the traditional and conservative way of recieving the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Mass.🙏🙏
@kathylum58863 жыл бұрын
We are fortunate to have Communion on the tongue in our parish, even during Covid. It is very important to me to receive Jesus on the tongue.
@TriciaRP3 жыл бұрын
If you don't have the holy spirit by being supernaturally Born again from above it doesn't matter.....there is no one in Biblical times sitting around debating on received the communion ON THE TONGUE OR HAND . It is such a Ridiculous argument......JUST FOOLISH THIS IS WHY RCC IS FALSE DOCTRINE
@sleppynoggin88082 жыл бұрын
@@TriciaRP read john 6 sister, and Jesus reffers to the bread and wine at the last supper as “my body” and the chalice of wine is reffered to as “the blood of my covenant” how can there be debate to this! Why would he not be speaking litterally, in john 6 many desiples left him and he did not claim that he was speaking metaphorically so they would stay. the Holy Eucharist being the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord is dogma. If someone gave you something and before they did you knew IT WAS JESUS would you not recieve it with the utmost care reverence respect submission and piety? People lose crumbs of the Holy Eucharist sometimes taking it in the hand, the church permits this but we as a church should lick the crumbs but my personal conviction is to recieve on the tounge or if nessicary to recieve in the hand and lick the crumbs. Also being “born again” the way reffered to now is not in line with the very early church and what the Holy Apostles taught, they taught that youre born again when you are baptised, the “born again that non Catholics and Orthodox refer to has only been around for around 100 years, very different then what was taught within 100 years of Our Lords incarnation. Something else that is missing from non Catholic and Orthodox Christians is confirmation, the apostles laid hands on newly baptised believers and said “recieve the Holy Spirit” is this not important? The problem with little to no tradition is that we stray off and accept our own understanding which often times is not in line with our Lords will for us, i left the Catholic church which i was born into and became an anabaptist, i was “born again” in the non Catholic/Orthodox sense i was anti-Catholic, i went to Eucharistic addoration i felt as if Jesus was looking down at me through the Eucharist illuminating my mistakes and inviting me to fix them my first thought was “oh no what have i done ive made a grave mistake” , i struggled with this for a week or so, my thought process for the entire week was, how can i recieve this how can i recieve, i didnt beleive in all the dogmas of the church. Maybe i can just accept all these dogmas blindly. But it dawned on me. If Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and showed me this it must be the real church as he would not show me this in a false church. God bless sister :) much love.
@finallythere1002 жыл бұрын
@@TriciaRP - You are TROLLING and you are completely clueless about Catholicism. The Holy Spirit is certainly not acting through you when you carry on this way. Catholics ARE born again when we confirm our faith as teenagers or adults. This completes the Catholic infant Baptism We are baptized in water and the Spirit and born again. Protestants like you who bombard Catholic channels with your ignorant, evil slanders of Catholics and Catholicism would be better off learning about the Catholic faith from valid, Catholic sources. But of course, it is easier for you to be obnoxious and to remain in error and hubris. You would also be better off picking up your cross and living out your faith by performing some Christian, charitable works instead of coming to our "home" and condemning us with your errors. You are NO authority on Catholicism. If you are born again, consider get reborn again. (Now be gone before someone drops a house on you!) I will include you on my rosary intentions today, for you to receive humility and other necessary graces. I welcome prayers, as well.
A priest's fingers are consecrated for a reason. Mine were not consecrated, so I'll continue to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
@ronbonora78722 жыл бұрын
yeah but here in Mississauga they will not give it on the tongue because of the pandemic!
@DJNightchild2 жыл бұрын
As someone who loves both the TLM and Novus Ordo, I think it also depends on the person him/herself. Receiving by hand does not equal being disrespectful, as long as the receiver acknowledges the sanctity of the Eucharist, and is reverend to Him. Do not forget, the Lord our Father sees all, and knows the reverence one feels in his heart.
@gtibruce2 жыл бұрын
What ever augument is put there is an easy sure answer which is, how did the girls at Garabandal recive the host from the blessed virgin? It was on the tongue for all to see and was even filmed in black and white!
@patriciabrower5322 жыл бұрын
Jesus is not amused in receiving communion in the hand. He demands priest to mouth and on bended knee. He made this clear a week before Easter this last year and was very angry. He is very powerful I couldn,t stop shaking for at least 6 to 8 hours from his anger.
@c.Ichthys2 жыл бұрын
I agree that it is not a sin to receive Eucharist in the hand. Our Lord demonstrated this at the Last Supper. He broke the Bread and declared this is His Body. He passed thr bread to the Apostles (,and all others gathered there, you can bet His beloved Mother was there). They ate the bread, picked up from their hands! And this continued in Early church...they did not have wafers as we have: they had actual bread shared and held in hands.
@patriciabrower5322 жыл бұрын
@@c.Ichthys He can break bread with his hands because he is the High Priest just like they do in mass. The priests are ordained by him to do so. As parishioners we,re not priests. We don,t have that authority.
@c.Ichthys2 жыл бұрын
@@gtibruce well, those girls were in ecstasy and we, who are not have not received visions and heavenly hosts. People should be able to recieve either way But ALWAYS with reverence and deep respect.
@angelasoyza16372 жыл бұрын
When I first received 1st Holy Communion in 1965 we received on the hand and we dipped it into the chalice to receive His blood as well. The reverence I had then has only deepened. It is our heart and mind that is important and holding on to the most fundamental truths taught by Jesus and not subverting them. To me Jesus is present and is waiting to come to a heart that is open. Intentions are the most important thing. 🙏♥️
@justanotheryoutubewarrior83962 жыл бұрын
The eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus. Even without dipping it, it is still the blood.
@FigaroHey2 жыл бұрын
Except that it is absolutely forbidden for non-priests to self-communicate by intinction. You were initiated into a Eucharistic abuse. Sorry about how you 'feel' about it. On your knees in front of God is appropriate. And the humility of being fed by the father, not 'taking' communion like fries and ketchup is intrinsically more reverent.
@myteachermary77142 жыл бұрын
Many Eucharistic Miracles have happened where the bread turned to Eucharist became live flesh with fresh bllood. Eucharist alone is sufficient. It is body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.Amen.
@jamestouchette8592 жыл бұрын
I think some of the respondents might have misunderstood your wording, but I get the spirit of your message. I am of the belief that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling is the best way, but the Church herself has decided that receiving in the hand is morally acceptable. A HUGE part of being Catholic is understanding that we have a moral obligation to be obedient to the Church. So, while on the tongue may be ideal, to receive in the hand is wholly acceptable. The Church HAS since come out and said it is not acceptable to dip the Body in the Blood, so that's an easy "case closed" lol. My other reply to the main thread more clearly states my understanding and beliefs about why it's actually VALUABLE for the Church to permit reception in the hand, contrary to popular opinion!
@billoreilly23232 жыл бұрын
@@FigaroHey What a load of bull dung.
@360hershey73 жыл бұрын
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your unequivocal answer about receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. At my parish in Wisconsin, I saw one man consistently kneel to receive Holy Communion on his tongue. He would wait to be the last one in line. I told him I wished I had his courage to do the same thing. He simply replied, "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, my Best Friend. How else could I receive Him?" God keep you so bold to speak the Truth!!!
@cheechak4813 жыл бұрын
....public virtue signaling is becoming more popular as a form of protest
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@cheechak481 So you know what is in that man's heart?
@cheechak4813 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 hey...bro....I do not know what is in the man's heart....but I do know that it is not for me to judge....that is between him and God.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@cheechak481 So do you think he is virtue signaling?
@margarethealy59833 жыл бұрын
Receive the blessed euchsrst on the tongue
@COGTOOM3 жыл бұрын
Receiving with devotion, reverence and piety. Fr. Goring said it so simply, so powerfully.
@CatholicBossHogg3 жыл бұрын
He literally said it timidly and like a woman. The entire video is him hedging
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@CatholicBossHogg Why are you here, Protestant Bryan?
@CatholicBossHogg3 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 big brain take
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@CatholicBossHogg Lumen Gentium 25 - get familiar with it
@michaelspeyrer12643 жыл бұрын
It isn’t up to fr. To decide if others are “receiving causally,”. By receiving in a way they have permission to receive in. It’s not up to him.
@mattberg9163 жыл бұрын
I have never touched the Holy Eucharist, never does the Lord even touch my teeth. Consumed whole and now I've found a church with a communion rail, on my knees! I love it!
@mattberg9163 жыл бұрын
@Tricia Perry please come away from your lies about the Sacred Body of Jesus
@declannewton25562 жыл бұрын
Turboautist
@SilhSe2 жыл бұрын
7:16 exemptions
@charleskramer89956 ай бұрын
How do you fulfill the command of the Lord to take and eat if you do not chew? In John 6:54 the Lord used words which are properly translated as "gnaw on." "The one who gnaws on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . ."
@snowcat94933 жыл бұрын
I get cold sores on my lips. In the most contagious stage they are not visible to an outsider. To deter the spread of cold sores to another, I am pleased to receive the Eucharist in my hands. Before, I would refuse Communion when I felt one coming on. For health reasons I am happy I can receive in the hands.
@cristinad71423 жыл бұрын
I go to a very reverent Novus Ordo that never stopped giving Communion kneeling on the tongue if that’s how the communicant present themselves. I’m grateful for this. They also have confession for 1 hour prior to every mass and a priest is in the confessional during mass up to the presentation of the gifts. It’s awesome.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
sounds good, and yet have a look at section 160 of St. Faustina's diary, where Our Lord celebrates being held in the hand - the practice of the early Church
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
As another person here, A Retrograde said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostles. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO. To go against Trent makes one as heretical as Martin Luther.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 obviously not -- Trent has no special status among ecumenical councils - the practice/norm of receiving in the hand did change, and is changed again today (to allow both practcices) -- no getting around the reality of the early Church practice of Eucharist in the hand -- look at how late your references are, to get a sense of what I mean
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 The Council of Trent said receiving on the tongue was bssed upon Apostolic Tradition. As has been said before: St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” So since Ecumenical Councils, multiple Doctors of the Church, multiple popes, and traditions going back to at least 115 AD. Too many popes, too much precedent, almost 2000 years of precedent, too many councils, too many synods, etc, etc, for ine council of Vatican II or one pope, Francis to override. And Pope Honorious' actions shows us one cannot do as one feels like doing. To do so on this now would gut the church. Apostolic Tradition, all those councils, popes, popes in concert with councils, synods, etc, all altogether must be obeyed. The weight of all the decisions, in concert, over millenia, sets all of this in stone so to say. It is therefore permanent and cannot be undone. Honorius I found out the hard way you cannot do whatever you feel like. All, even popes, must obey all of the collective body and decisions before them or they can just do whatever they like, which Pope Honorious I found out, although posthumously, is false. End of discussion. Obey all of then before you. They altogether override one Pope or one mere Vat 2 Council. They are in opposition to them before them as Vatican 2 itself basically said receiving in the hand was the exception to the rule not the rule itself but all before undoes Vat 2 anyway on this. Therefore they, since they precede, take precedence. Obey them. Muted.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 Btw, one last thing. You cannot isolate Trent by itself. It, along with all before it, all together, with all the Popes, synods, councils, ecumenical councils, the Apostolic Tradition that Trent speaks of, etc, all together overrule, outweight, and overwhelm one mere council (Vat 2) and Pope Francis. So, would you obey Pope Honorius I if he told you to agree with him on monothelitism?
@anthonyortega54673 жыл бұрын
Please bring back the communion rails so that we can kneel and receive Our Lord Jesus the way we were taught. The right&only way to receive HIM!!!❤🙏 Viva Cristo Rey👆
@minombre65642 жыл бұрын
VIVA!!!
@mirajimenez59542 жыл бұрын
I perfectly agree! Praised be Jesus....
@rutheiermann34762 жыл бұрын
St Bernadette's in Phoenix, which is a newer Church here, was built with Communion rails. Reverent Novus Ordo Mass
@martinhaub26022 жыл бұрын
@@rutheiermann3476 St Anne in Gilbert just added the rails.
@judithreejones95453 жыл бұрын
I am old and remember the latin and pre Vatican II but am completely okay with things as they are now. Spent years being in the choir loft singing for the latin Mass before everyone was allowed to sing so i have seen it from both sides. And the changes have opened doors that are wonderful. Being an Eucharistic minister both at Mass and to the sick has taught me so much. Several times at Mass when i was a Eucharistic minister to each person i felt such a tremendous love for that person but i did not know most of the people. Later i realized that it was Christ Himself who loved his people and He allowed me to feel His love for His people. I so want to tell them of His great love for them. Again on receiving in the hand it gives me a few seconds of very intense adoration and on the way to reception there is a quick kiss before receiving. I am His spouse and only one place in all the canons is a woman called a spouse of Christ and that is Canon 604 ( or is it 605?).
@alhilford23453 жыл бұрын
Then you must be old enough to remember your First Holy Communion preparation, and being told how to receive on your tongue, because it was a mortal sin for any lay person to touch the consecrated Host. And I bet you never even dared to walk into a Catholic Church unless you were wearing a hat or a scarfe.
@jeannemccloskey941611 ай бұрын
Praise God that we have a priest now at our parish who constantly talks about the beauty, reverence of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. I changed about a year ago for all the reasons you offered. For years (since Vatican 2) I received in the hand. There just wasn't communication about either or.... you just received on the hand. I received First Holy Communion in 1953 and must have received on the tongue for the 10 years before Vat II but I don't have a strong recollection. We did have a communion rail and I recall it was meaningful. I love the Catholic Church under that carpet with all its beauty, history and uplifting spirituality!! Thanks Fr. Mark..... and Matt....
@sarajaneconstantin25553 жыл бұрын
I love that Fr. Goring has a picture of Pope Benedict XVI behind him 😉💕
@CharlottePrattWilson3 жыл бұрын
That’s because he the legitimate Pope.
@allisonb.83563 жыл бұрын
Me Too!!! ❤️🙏🏻🙌🏻
@michaelspeyrer12643 жыл бұрын
@@CharlottePrattWilson That's not how papal succession works.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@CharlottePrattWilson St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* Those who are appreciative of Sacred Tradition, held by the church (except for schismatic, Martin Luther types) for 2,000 years, don't have a problem then after learning about this to start receiving on the tongue so as to try and help limit sacrilege, but the defiant types won't. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouth". St. Sixtus 1 (c. 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." Those who say they want to go back to the early church are schismatic, protestant types who ignore the fact that women at the very beginning weren't allowed to be consecrated for this, nor allowed to touch sacred objects, nor allowed to do readings, all of which undoes what Pope Pachamana wants for acolytes and lectors.
@makethisgowhoosh3 жыл бұрын
And whose picture he doesn't have :)
@wendypicou85033 жыл бұрын
I’d like to reference Holy Scripture when St. John the Baptist said: One mightier than I is coming and I am not worthy to loosen the straps of His sandals. Now, if HE is not worthy to loosen the straps of Jesus’ sandals then who am I to handle His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist??? I receive Holy Communion only on my tongue.
@wendymitchell82453 жыл бұрын
Wendy Jesus just passed the bread and cup to them . They passed it around .John just meant Jesus was God, therefore greater in everyway.
@mrscindymargaret27363 жыл бұрын
Mary washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried it with her hair! I’m lost for words
@connermcd3 жыл бұрын
The disciples were rebuked for treating to eucharistic like a meal instead of eating in their homes. Were they eating without their hands?
@blanchesaxa77603 жыл бұрын
Wendy ~~ My young son 45 years ago or more wrote how he felt about the “new” way to receive our Lord.. he , at 7 years old , cited that exact same
@crislo8303 жыл бұрын
@@wendymitchell8245 They are Apostles therefore their hands are consecrated and worthy to receive in the hand
@carolpreved60552 жыл бұрын
I recall once at a Cathedral during an Ordination, an elderly priest was disgusted when he saw I wished to receive on the tongue and he flung the Host with anger etc into my mouth. I did not feel hurt for myself but a tremendous sorrow that he forgot Who he had in his hands and mistreated. Poor Jesus. Sr. Carol
@mmllafleur40042 жыл бұрын
I was brought up in a convent and was told that we should never touch the Ciborium,, nor the Chalice, nor the Altar. Receiving Holy Communion in the hand was unheard of at that time. So now, when I attend MAss and not able to receive Our Lord on the tongue, I ask the Lord to send my Guardian Angel to gather up the Holy Fragments that fall to the floor and bring them to me so that I can still receive my Lord on the tongue Sacramentally.
@daninspiration40643 жыл бұрын
Our tongue is unworthy of Him, every part of us is unworthy of Him but his grace allows us to receive Him. Whether our hand or our tongue it's what we acknowledge deep inside that counts.
@keig61613 жыл бұрын
I believe your wrong and lovingly here's why. If the Angel Gabriel kneeled before our blessed mother a creature. We bring fallen sinners most definitely need to kneel while receiving out blessed Lord. God bless
@daninspiration40643 жыл бұрын
@@keig6161 I don't think it's stated in the bible that angels kneeled before her, but I would not be surprised but regardless of the fact. It should not be made mandatory because worship comes from the heart not by kneeling nor standing. We kneel before Mary but we do not worship, we stand before Jesus yet we worship. Again it's the heart of the person and if your heart makes you feel like kneeling great, but it's not something that has to be done inorder to feel more reverant in receiving Jesus.
@tammynate76273 жыл бұрын
@@daninspiration4064 duuuuuude finally! I have always thought this but I rarely see others who think so too. God isn’t going to judge you at the end and say “you knelt to receive the Eucharist so you’re going to heaven, but you didn’t so you’re not” . It is definitely a right to receive on the tongue and kneeling but condemning others for not is not.
@daninspiration40643 жыл бұрын
@ShariaFreeUK I do respect the Eucharist when taken by hand. I protect it by licking the palm of my hand after I put it into my mouth. I am just obedient to what the church is telling us to do. I have to disagree with your point and will continue to receive by hand unless the church hands a decree that says we need to go back to communion in mouth only.
@daninspiration40643 жыл бұрын
@ShariaFreeUK I never said you can't receive it on tongue but I just disagree that it must be recieved by tongue. And I do not touch anyone or anything after I lick my hand. I santize right away and afterwards I go into the restroom to wash my hands. Point is that it should be ok for a person to receieve by tongue or hand. Those that decided to take it to their car or do otherwise with it is the sin of their own.
@ecoolingproperties14673 жыл бұрын
The Fatima Angel came administered the Eucharist to children on their tongue kneeling after all the angel is a messenger from God .
@xxl19503 жыл бұрын
To kneel before the Lord and to say "My Lord and My God" is an act of humility and adoration.
@mikecando171711 ай бұрын
I wanted to share. I was a mix of receiving on the tongue but sometimes on the hand. A few months ago just after receiving on the hand, I had an experience. No words were given to me but I experienced in my soul that it was not right. I now only receive on the tongue. No judgement from me on how others receive. I just believe God wants me to receive on the tongue.
@joanowczarski87623 жыл бұрын
When our church first reopened, parishioners were not allowed to receive on the tongue. Those who refrained from receiving on the hand did it out of love, honor, reverence for Jesus. I don't condemn those who receive on the hand. Refraining from receiving the Eucharist was exceedingly difficult but it also became a blessing, endearing Him more to me than ever befor.
@jms15953 жыл бұрын
I can't get past the knowledge that when we receive on the hand particles of the Eucharist remain, not necessarily easily visible, and so those particles, which are Jesus, can wind up on our clothes, on the floor, etc. I don't want to knowingly subject Our Lord to that.
@Snails8883 жыл бұрын
Aquinas actually addresses this. “If the change [in the consecrated elements] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.” A particle invisibly small seems to fit his definition here.
@jms15953 жыл бұрын
@@Snails888 not really because the particles aren't corrupted and their appearance isn't altered. They are just small.
@Snails8883 жыл бұрын
@@jms1595 “if the bread be reduced to fine particles.” He specifically addresses tiny pieces.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@Snails888 thanks for mentioning this important insight, Alex
@standev13 жыл бұрын
@@Snails888 You commented about "a particle invisibly small". But there can be visible small particles, which are still visible to an eye if you look attentively.
@scarletolea3193 жыл бұрын
As a lay person, borned after 2nd Vatican Council, to me I bow with reverence before receiving by hand. Answering Amen with conviction to the proclaimation, The Body of Christ is essential. Showing reverence, praying, praising, worshipping Jesus internally is utmost important.
@KnightsofOurLadyofSorrows Жыл бұрын
I agree we must be reverent when receiving Our Lord but receiving our Lord on the hand causes Eucharistic particles to fall on the ground, etc. Every single particle of the Holy Eucharist is God. JMJ
@debraespey7273 Жыл бұрын
Does the priest himself not release these particles too then?I am willing to go back to priest only, with a patten while I kneel at a rail. I can’t get down to the floor and back up at this age and a rail helps tremendously. Our church has the one priest and three Eucharistic Ministers who are mostly women. If we’re going clear back to St. Cyril, wouldn’t it need to be the priest only? No women? Our altar servers do not stand and offer the patten. I fear more of dropping the Eucharist off my tongue than if I put it in my mouth myself. My heart lights up within me after I receive my Lord! I don’t think that after 60 years of receiving Him, He makes me feel any different when I receive on the tongue in a church 45 miles away or in my hand at my local church. I have recently lectures on why I should receive on the tongue and almost feel bullied by the lecture and pressure to receive as they think I’m being unholy. I don’t think Jesus sees anything wrong with what I’m doing. He loves what’s in my heart.♥️
@museluvr3 жыл бұрын
I attended 1 Latin mass since checking out the Church and then being baptized, so I have to agree with Fr Goring. The communion rail was more personal to me even when I couldn't take the Eucharist at that point, and bending a knee to my Lord and Savior is absolutely no problem for me. "Every knee will bow...." such a lovely thought. I started with receiving in the hand, but then came to my senses, and now only on the tongue. My hands ARE NOT consecrated to touch my Lord. It pains me to watch most these days take our Lord in hand. I wonder if they don't believe or are ignorant to the teaching and CC on this. But, now.. its tongue only.
@paulineoburu89303 жыл бұрын
I say yes to communion rails, kneeling, head scarf for the ladies - let’s bring out the red carpet! It is after all JESUS whom we receive. However, I also see the importance of obedience particularly when navigating these challenging times. Receiving in the hand has forced me to pay greater attention to the state of my soul......
@mariamaibel96873 жыл бұрын
💖🛐⚘Brother Its A Veil That I'm Wearing At,And Not Scarf At All💖🙏⚘Amen💖✝️⚘
@fld92663 жыл бұрын
Why are veils needed ? I don’t want to belong to a religion that treats women badly
@timfirst35363 жыл бұрын
@@fld9266 It's much like how a man wears a suit. Again, not needed but preferred, as we are in presence of Our Lord, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Pax Christi -
@fld92663 жыл бұрын
@@timfirst3536 I don’t think Jesus requires head coverings - he wants us there - men want head coverings .
@levaq82613 жыл бұрын
If you all looked at the profile name, it is a lady who made this comment. Must be careful to not make rash judgements and assumptions. This was not a man making this comment. What is so wrong with wanting to wear a vail in Church? It has nothing to do with making women feel inferior to men.
@edshakespeare91223 жыл бұрын
John Paul ll: "I can not be in favor of Communion in the hand, I can not recommend it! Touching the Holy Creations is a privilege of the ordained ones" (Dominicae Cenae ll) Rosary Scapular Mass...!!
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
the early Church received in the hand - facts as Vatican liturgical offices have affirmed
@edshakespeare91223 жыл бұрын
the Church was sent the Holy Ghost to Guide Her! then Her Councils...
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@edshakespeare9122 true - and the current pope approves of communion in the hand - guided by the Holy Spirit (Lumen Gentium 25 demands we give "religious assent of mind and will" to the current pope)
@edshakespeare91223 жыл бұрын
Nope! Father Gruner and his Apostolate tells "we are in the great Apostasy" written of in the Bible... If a Pope errors it can be over turned by next Pope if done Correctly (Canon Laws) also that we are not obligated to follow Him that this Apostasy begins at the top!!... his Apostolate is called the Fatima Center they can argue details with you about their teaching they're Traditional Mass, Magisterium... Pope Benedict XVI only gave Communion on the tongue and Kneeling
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@edshakespeare9122 send this to Fr. Gruner and tell him to get in line -- this teaching is from ECUMENICAL COUNCIL teaching (the highest teaching authority in the Church): "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
@frankiivisa29712 жыл бұрын
I asked mother Mary while meditating and praying, if it was ok to receive holy communion in the hand, I miraculously received an answer several hours later almost 3 Am ( time I somehow often awaken and pray the Devine Mercy ) . I heard a voice in my mind (in Italian) " con le lacrime " which means in English, with tears. What is strange, except for the rosary and only the rosary ( I recited the rosary in Italian since childhood ) my mind function in English. Also, when I woke up in the morning, in my mind, I was hearing the song Salve Regina. which ended on waking What was amazing for all those that have ringing in the ears, the song was at that frequency but in the purest form just beautiful Never heard anything like this before nor after. I'd say it came from up above to confirm the given answer...
@JupeGiggles Жыл бұрын
Fellow Italian, I’m not understanding. What do you believe she answered?
@ojciecchrzestny44297 ай бұрын
do not listen womans and do not speak with them about important things
@FengShuibyJenScottsdale3 жыл бұрын
I always receive the Holy Eucharist in my tongue and if the communion rails is not available, I always kneel with my right knee bent. I always feel so humbled and blessed to receive Jesus in this way. Something about the physical gesture mimics my heart. I will always do this as long as possible. During the pandemic, I had to receive it in the hands but I always kneel. I love this communion with our Lord. God bless!
@kimlaurinda2613 жыл бұрын
Love Fr Gorings message!!! Lets make sure that we receive Our Lord. Run to Him! However we can receive Him. Because I cant be without Him. Yes!!! I am not going to debate how to receive Him. Respectfully speaking, I learned how I took mass for granted up until I couldn't receive Him because of pandemic. I say this to Thank God that I see who is first in my life. Finally I see💖By Gods Grace
@janetmarusiak10733 жыл бұрын
I remember when they took the rails away and said many times why would they do this. I feel we need to kneel and receive on the tongue to give the reverence that our Lord deserves. Someone said no wander others who visit our Mass and see us lined up like in a cafeteria to get the Communion and not showing any sign of holiness so why would one that is not Catholic believe this little host is the Lord when we treat Him so casually.
@Miken33073 жыл бұрын
I read a story somewhere where a Catholic was explaining to a Muslim our belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ/God at the Consecration or simply that the Eucharist is God. The Muslim replied something to the order of “if I thought that was God, I wouldn’t be behaving like I see most Catholics at their Churches!”. Very true!
@paulcapaccio99052 жыл бұрын
@@Miken3307 wow so true !🙏
@lilianamunoz30032 жыл бұрын
When were the rails taken away? I have seen rails in Mexico when visiting churches but I was not aware what they were for since I did my first comunión in the US. I don’t know if Mexico is still more traditional.
@anacelia94813 жыл бұрын
Go back to the Tridentine Mass and everything will fall in place.
@Bob-hb5tr3 ай бұрын
And this issue has never been addressed during this supposed Eucharistic Revival....I fell for this for the longest time...I am 64...so I very well remember Altar Rails (not addressed) and kneeling before..I am with Fr Goring, after reading more about the Eucharist...I started kneeling and receiving on the tongue again...As a Knight we need to Defend the Holy Catholic Church...and that means bowing before our Lord and Saviour when I receive him weekly... It just makes so much sense. I did wrestle with the Pride thing, but thought about it long and hard and now am very comfortable with my decision. Our Priest is from Nigeria and is spectacular! He put a Kneeler out for people who wish to receive on the tongue. As a Knight of Columbus I took my Degree's seriously and do my best to live them. Receiving on the tongue is one way I can do that.
@rodneyferris40893 жыл бұрын
Personally I prefer to receive on the tongue but as our bishop has asked us to receive on the hand I think that in obedience there is peace. Why do assume that everyone who receives on the hand is sinning! Or being disrespectful!
@rushthezeppelin3 жыл бұрын
Did you watch the video? Neither of them said that receiving on the hand was a sin.
@thomasbailey9213 жыл бұрын
@@rushthezeppelin well sure, but go through the comments section and you will find many Catholics who are very judgmental on the topic
@agihernandez78463 жыл бұрын
Yes is really sad to see comments from people shaming or calling disrespectful to people who receive the Eucharist in the hand. To disobey to your bishop is to disobey Christ. I would prefer to receive on tongue but since I want to obey, Jesus knows are hearts thats what matters
@shane80373 жыл бұрын
Lol if you think your bishop can give you orders that contradict what Rome teaches, you are a schismatic.
@billhuntillustration34043 жыл бұрын
@@shane8037 wait, so are you saying “Rome” doesn’t permit communion in the hand?
@stevenj1214able3 жыл бұрын
I would love to see communion rails in every parish. Also why can’t the new mass be done with the reverence the Latin mass is done with. That’s the thing that makes me cringe in some parishes is the total lack of reverence even by the priest. I’m not saying these folks are deliberately doing this but I have seen the new mass done very reverently with incense and some Latin mixed in with communion rails.
@johnobeid673 жыл бұрын
@Steven Johnston The Novus Ordo COULD be done reverently and it probably was in the beginning back in 1969. The problem is that once you start changing some things, the temptation to change everything starts to overwhelm. Modernism is a destructive virus. The host lives and carries on for a while but in the end, the infection causes severe sickness.
@stevenj1214able3 жыл бұрын
@@johnobeid67 I agree with you there. It breaks my heart every time I watch people go up for Communion and they treat it as if they were receiving a skittle or a piece of candy.
@johnobeid673 жыл бұрын
@@stevenj1214able I remember listening to a Taylor Marshall video about what he calls his “Grover moment”. He was going up to communion and was confronted by the sight of a “communion minister” who was standing up there giving out communion wearing a great big image of Grover (the cute and cuddly Sesame Street character) on her pullover. He knew from that moment that he was done with the New Mass.
@stevenj1214able3 жыл бұрын
@@johnobeid67 I refuse to go in the line where a Eucharist Minister is handing out communion......I just can't do it.
@stevenj1214able3 жыл бұрын
I'm a recent convert who was received into the church this past May. The real presence is one of the major things that drew me into the church. After my confirmation if just floored me as I began to see how many catholics don't seem to believe in the real presence. Then I went to a Latin Mass and man what a difference.
@A.S24003 жыл бұрын
Try to visit other parishes. My archdiocese “says” no Eucharist on the tongue. But there are many individual parishes that still do. I changed parishes officially this week for a parish that is architecturally very 1970s carpeted and “modernist” instead of my old beautiful 1800s gothic architecture. BUT!! But the new parish has zero lay people or ministers handing out the host. And about half receive on the tongue, on the 2 small kneelers at the front. It’s SO beautiful!! And it’s growing too.
@elitisthavoc39492 жыл бұрын
“for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”” Romans 14:11
@christiane9343 жыл бұрын
No, it is no sin! If you have awe, love, humility and genuine faith - than you are in a good condition. Jesus sees the heart, and he, who died for us and beared our sins, have no problem, when we make communion with our hands! I am very sure for that!
@clintresler12182 жыл бұрын
So, are humans completely spiritual beings?
@lovesrlady23 жыл бұрын
Okay, during THE pandemic bishops want Holy Communion to be given in the hand. What was their reasoning PRIOR to THE pandemic? The bishops have lost their spiritual compass, blind guides! 🌹
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
A.) 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue *receiving Holy Communion by hand.* 4.) This was *confirmed* by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the *mouth* is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against *sacrilege.* The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”* 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors *with excommunication.* 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], *nothing touches it,* but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an *Apostolic Traditon".*
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” All of 1-9 are in agreement. The popes in concert with the councils are in agreement, and the popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone. By Trent citing "Apostolic Tradition" it anchors 1-9 in the New Testament making it irreversible forever. To challenge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
C.) Sacred Scripture and Tradition work hand in hand from 30AD until now and forever. Period. The past popes and councils worked together in agreement on 1-9 I listed above, and popes before and after them agreed with them. Once they declared certain actions involved with the Eucharist service to be sin, sacrilege, mortal sin, excommunicable offenses, and so on, and Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, then for people now to make them not sin, mortal sin, etc, (what was declared in 1-9 to be sin) would be akin to saying that what St. Peter and St. Paul said were sin are no longer sin. Thus for people now to say what 1-9 declared to br sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people now saying it wasn't or isnt. You can't. Given The Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it links it back to the saints of Sacred Scripture. Sin is sin. This isn't relativistic. Truth doesn't change.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 LIsten to MIchael's explanation to you! Open your ears. To quote Michael, all of these are under sacramental discipline. Sacramental discipline is always subject to the living magisterium. You don't seem to understand how that is classified under canon law. Giving more quotations, and as far as the council of Tent is concerned you didn't provide the quotations, doesn't change that fact. Your premises are faulty leading to a faulty conclusion. The magisteirum DOES have this authority and they have acted on it. For you to deny that is choosing an ideology over reality. Either that or you have to reach a sedevcantes conclusion which is condemned under the First Vatican Council. When appealing to heresy is your only fall back position, its time to re-examine your premises.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 On another thread you presumed to speak for Christ, blasphemer, You have torpedoed your claim to being relevant now and having any useful input. Time and again when others, like myself, have A.) sound, cogent retorts to your B.) lack of step by step taking thing all the way back through C.) Sacred Tradition and D.) Sacred Scripture to the E.) beginning and link it forward to the F.) Council of Trent, with all the G.) popes during this council and H.) before and after, plus the I.) Councils before it and J.) popes before and after Trent all in agreement with C through I, you then respond with "I know, you don't" - your continued nothing burger response. And add to it what Sissy on here said about your inappropriate language and Ad Homs usage and its clear you need to grow up. And given C through J, in contrast with your nothing burger replies, crack a book open for once and learn something instead of running off at the mouth all the time. Your pride, arrogance, and projecting are showing and it's past old, schismstic protestant modernist. And quit propping up Pope Pachamam, too, who leavened the whole lump by inviting Pachamama devotees and letting them play the fool on sacred ground. But no doubt you rejoiced in that, so I'm wondering if you are a closet pagan. Sigh.
@issa45482 жыл бұрын
2 years ago, I have found a traditional Latin church that doesn't permit parishioners to receive the Holy sacrament in the hand. We bow down, make a sign of the Cross and kneel in the front rails hands covered by white linen,.Women are in veils and dressed decently . The Mass is so solemn, It's so sacred and beautiful veneration. The first time I attended TLM, I sobbed so much from so much guilt that the majority of my life I have done sacrileges act to the body of our Lord. Whenever I see the Holy Eucharist being received by hands I can't help but cry for the Lclrd Our Savior , Jesus Christ.
@lizaares39522 жыл бұрын
I feel that Communion should be received on the tongue no matter what is going on in the “world” 🙏 and if kneeling then so be it. In Italy more people take on the tongue than hands and I personally feel that fitting for Our Lord Jesus 🙏💓💯
@maryeleazer31693 жыл бұрын
I agree I receive on Tongue but sometimes priest don’t allow . But I would never not receive Jesus if they would not let me receive on my tongue because I love him so much I need him in my soul ❤️
@darby33663 жыл бұрын
Yes, i, and many of my friends, are longing for the Communion Rails..it would emphasize the reverence that has been lost over the years and needs to be returned.
@Chuck08563 жыл бұрын
reverence is a personal attitude not an object.
@rickreed734110 ай бұрын
A nun once told me: we do more harm in our lives with our tongues than our hands. If we remembered this more often, we'd never receive on the tongue. Reverence isn't made by a posture or body part, but is within us. Receiving Communion is a procession involving the entire assembly. What is our posture in a procession?
@deniselindquist85045 ай бұрын
I agree whole heartedly with 'rickreed' in the above comment. The tongue is more sinful than the hand, 'a restless evil, full of deadly poison' as St. James put it. It is not a holy vessel, and certainly not 'holier' than one's hand. I received communion on the tongue kneeling at the rail from my first communion in 1956, until post-novis ordo in the later 1960's, when it became commonplace to receive in the hand. Didn't the Lord say, 'Take and eat' ? No where in scripture where it says Jesus broke bread with those present, either before or after his Resurrection, does He say, 'don't touch' or 'stick out your tongue, I'll feed it to you'...He broke it and GAVE it, handing it to those with whom he shared His bread, His body. Yes, it needs to be received with great reverence, and can be even when received in the hand. I am honored, and feel very blessed that I can personally receive the Lord in my hand and willingly 'Take... and eat' as He commanded. The level of reverence, honor, respect, and love for our Lord is brought to the Lord's table by each recipient INTERNALLY and regardless of external, whether one genuflects, kneels at a rail, or bows and stands before the priest with hands outstretched. What is important is my internal/spiritual response to His offering of "THIS IS MY BODY", with my acceptance, assent , and thankfulness. AMEN !
@beatrizbiederman66963 жыл бұрын
In the last year, I’ve always sought permission from several Pastors before taking on the tongue to spare distraction, and because a priest has to weigh his obedience to the Archbishop versus his conscience on this matter. As long as we can find priests who will give communion on the tongue, this is not a time of emergency, but of sacrifice to travel. (I’m not being scrupulous.) I use to go to Mass daily, so I found two who said ‘yes,’ out of many many who said “no.” I found they condemn us, not the other way around. One even got upset that I would even ask and told me I “should change my preference.” I kindly mentioned that it had to do more with my belief and knowledge about why receiving on the hand is an indult, and that receiving on the tongue is the “preferred method” of the Catholic Church. I just hoped he’d oblige to spare me the long drive. Nope. The majority of Novus Ordo Mass attendees easily receive on the hand. The last generation was not taught about why some “still receive on the tongue” as an act of reverence, nor about the crumbs of Christ that tend to spread on their hands, clothes, and floor. At this point it appears that this is an intentional “conditioning” to phase out receiving on the tongue.
@makemyday23852 жыл бұрын
You are 100% correct. Receiving on the hand is an indult and was meant to be an exception, not the norm. Its the very essence why there is a crisis in the Catholic Church regarding the belief in the Real Presence. Remember: Lex orandi Lex credendi. How/what we pray is what we believe.
@gtibruce2 жыл бұрын
What ever augument is put there is an easy sure answer which is, how did the girls at Garabandal recive the host from the blessed virgin? It was on the tongue for all to see and was even filmed in black and white!
@TrustInJesusThruMaryWithJoseph3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video. What breaks my heart is that what should be a rare rare exception has become the regular thing and now we see the fruits of this...there’s hardly any Catholics that truly believe that Jesus is truly substancially present in the Holy Eucharist. I agree that we need to return to receiving Jesus in Holy Communion with deepest reverance, on our knees and on the tongue. This should be the norm and not the other way around. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. 🙏🏻🕊🔥❤️🔥🕊🙏🏻
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
B.) Like books in a bookshelf, the first Popes would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book would be all popes from AD 101 to 200 and on and on until now. All popes in each book until now build upon and agree with previous popes or they are akin to Pope Honorious I. No pope can contradict or override a previous pope. It is modernism that says one only obeys the current pope. There is either a diminishing or increasing of the papacy or there isn't either. If Pope Francis can override a pope in the 15th book (the pope associated with Council of Trent, 1545 to 1563) then he can ovveride popes in the 12th book, the 5th book, even the 1st one, including St. Peter, thus overriding Sacred Tradition, thus an increasing of the papacy. But he cannot override previous Popes and by extension Councils (like Vatican II) cannot override previous councils (like Trent) else they could override Sacred Tradition and the previous councils building upon councils before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back Nicaea and ultimately to Sacred Scripture.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
C.) Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus, everyone must obey all councils definitely, as a start, from Trent going back to Nicaea and all popes in agreement and against Francis must be obeyed.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 You lack understanding, Ray -- you should really stop spreading misinformation. Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
@macncheese00133 жыл бұрын
Back when I was an altar server, I would regularly see sizable Pieces of the Blessed Sacrament on the paten that I had been holding during Communion. Mind you, those Fragments were just what had fallen from the ciborium on the way to the person’s hands or tongue. When receiving on the tongue, any Pieces that fall are caught by the paten, and the Host is consumed without any being lost. However, after the Host is placed in someone’s hands, there are additional pieces that fall off and will be lost. If the thought of a Host falling onto the floor is bothersome to us, I would ask why a Fragment of that same Host is not also a cause for concern.
@ammcroft3 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@michaelspeyrer12643 жыл бұрын
There is a really easy fix to that, stop buying cheap, poorly made hosts.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
the early Church received in the hand - the earliest tradition - don't get stuck in the medieval Church
@macncheese00133 жыл бұрын
@Angelic Doctor Thank you for your advice/concern and for sharing your understanding of this matter. Just to clarify, my desire for receiving on the tongue is not grounded on adherence to medieval church practices. Rather, it is based upon a desire to avoid any loss of the Blessed Sacrament (as I originally wrote). In addition, I have realized it helps dispose me to receiving Our Lord with more reverence, and (if permitted) the act of kneeling helps to remind me of my littleness before Him.
@michaelspeyrer12643 жыл бұрын
@@macncheese0013 Reverence is a subjective expression. One cannot draw an objective universal from a subjective premise.
@helenebee1662 жыл бұрын
I just do not imagine a time where I would turn away from our Lord. 💖 Thank you, Father Mark and Matt! Viva Cristo Rey! 💖🌹🔥
@gma9043 жыл бұрын
Communion rails were before my time so I had to look them up. I would so much prefer them to be there! I hope and pray they put them back.
@nathanstell56653 жыл бұрын
Wow, “a lay person can not touch our Lord Jesus with the hand”. What do you think Christ would say about this. Did he say “let the children come to me...but don’t let them touch me with their hands”???
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@Mark Drope Yes. A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are *not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."* 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is *permitted only in times of persecution."* St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion *by hand.* 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostic Tradition".
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
B.) Protestant schismatics are like Luther who denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, 380 AD, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, say except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished since Peter giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus, as an example, everyone must obey all councils from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic and like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1-9.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
@MartinvonTours11.113 жыл бұрын
The Holy Eucharist is not His Physical Body. It is in the form of bread which is very fragile and visible particles can easily fall and be trampled.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 And you are still behaving like a child and need to grow up. You say that after Sissy here on one of these threads said you used Ad Homs and inappropriate language. You rely on childish comments to me because you've had your clocked cleaned several times by multiple people and you ran off. And your replies time and again show that you time and again resort to childish comments that you do here and act silly. People see it and comment on you because they know what I'm saying here about you. You never elaborate with sound, cogent, step by step remarks that prove your point, you just act like you know something when you dont. Again, grow up.
@rosalugo24653 жыл бұрын
There's so many people who do not know that its more reverence to GOD our lord, if we receive the Holy comunión kneels donw and on the tongue , and also sometimes some people how receiving on the hand don't remember the they have the mask trying to put it on the mouth breaking the body of Jesus all in pieces and also they never look there hands for small particles of the holy comunión after.
@carolpalmer599711 ай бұрын
Fr Mark, I appreciate your understanding on this matter. As we were raised through the transition from the Latin Mass to novus ordo, we were taught how to take Holy Communion on the hand. Then the sanctuaries were redesigned, the altar rails removed, as you said.. Now I am old and unable to kneel without a 4-point manipulation of my body, and getting to my feet is even harder - it is like a giraffe getting to its feet after a drink. I take the host on my hand very aware of what I am doing, I always adore it and welcome Jesus reverently before placing the blessed host on my own tongue. Wash my hands before attending Mass. I am sure not everyone does this, though they ought to, but in a way it is a beautiful little step to acknowledging what we are doing, who it is that we place in our bodies to support us through the day and night. So perhaps a little more instruction, as a reminder of what we do, from the pulpit, more careful instruction of new communicants, is a good idea, too. Look up and acknowledge this Body of Christ when I say "Amen", carefully lift it and place it in my mouth as something so precious, not a handful of nuts off a dish. And here in Australia it is a rare thing for people to receive Communion on the tongue. Our hands are a tactile and very integral part of our bodies. And the host ends up in our dirty mouths and digestive systems anyway. The raging debate about novus order vs Traditional Mass has not really taken off here, SSPX members are few and far between - thank the Lord, I say, because they are causing huge division in our Church. Changes were made to our Liturgy from Rome, we have faithfully followed those changes as promoted, supposed to advance the Faith in our Church - if this has been erroneous, that is another discussion to be had, and not from the self-righteous but from the top, please. Surrounded by conspiracy theories, contention, everywhere, we really do not need to be made to feel guilty for following the teaching of the Church as sent out from Rome in the second half of last century. SO PLEASE DO NOT THROW THIS THING AMONG THE FAITHFUL AND ACCUSE US OF BEING SINFUL THERE ARE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS IN THE US WHO TELL US IT IS A MORTAL SIN! I love the Eucharist, attend Mass every day or as frequently as possible, for this intimate meeting with our Lord.. Please don't push your high and mighty North American values on we who live in lesser zones under Bishops who do not seem to make issue about this.. Anybody who receives a host on his tongue is easily able to remove it from his mouth should he intend to desecrate it, so this does not necessarily protect the host from malign minds. My issue is with those distributing Communion, which is a task often carried out irreverently, without any acknowledgement that this is a sacred object being given to us. If the Priest or Lay Minister plonks the host on our outstretched hands as if he were dealing a pack of cards, that is so insulting, and in my mind demands to be called out by we devout communicants. And remember that at that sacred Last Supper, in instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Jesus did not ask his apostles to present themselves to him and put out their tongues to receive his special gift to them. "Take this and eat" - the way human beings would do? Probably pass it around by hand, and share. He is worthy of reverence and expects respect and awe from us, but knows well our human condition - which is what it is really all about - His incarnation, His life among us, and ultimately His sacrifice, both at this Table and on the Cross, and which actually makes this special Eucharist all the more truly amazing.
@deirdra1693 жыл бұрын
It's safer on the tongue and that's evidence based .
@John-yv2xh3 жыл бұрын
Receiving on the tongue is a beautiful act of reverence. However, it is important to remember that it is just that - an act of reverence. It should bring us closer to the Lord, but if we become prideful because of it, we are doing the opposite of what He wants. I only offer this caution because I have found this tendency in myself in the past. God Bless :)
@sissybrooks85883 жыл бұрын
It shouldn't have to be controversial. It was changed so anybody could handle and distribute it. It is just a.common piece of bread. No bid deal. I have seen it neglected on the nurses' station in the hospital. No wonder no one believes in it anymore. Good grief.
@sfrance80363 жыл бұрын
Every time I have had to receive it on my hands I find minuscule pieces of the host on my hands. This is why receiving Him on the tongue is more than just reverence. Imagine how many people receive Him and then wipe him on the first thing they touch.
@sissybrooks85883 жыл бұрын
@@sfrance8036 our leadership doesn't care.
@sfrance80363 жыл бұрын
@@sissybrooks8588 the premise of my argument is independent of leadership but on our inclinations.
@clairestevens31943 жыл бұрын
@@sissybrooks8588 Oh my dear, it really is not just bread. It has become the Body of Jesus as He told us. When you know this, everything changes. God bless you.
@holmes120013 жыл бұрын
I don’t want to put on “ a show” ... it’s so funny ... when we see people receiving on the hand and not even checking for particles On their hand after they consume the host.. nobody says anything .. when we see people walking past the tabernacle in short skirts without so much as the bowing of their head .. no body says anything ... but when a woman shows up at Mass with her head covered desiring communion on the tongue everybody stands up and has something to say ... my heart💔
@alhilford23453 жыл бұрын
Amen.
@Catherine-19682 жыл бұрын
When we are forced out of obedience to receive in the hand and no other choice, which has happened to me a couple of times when traveling - I feel anguish and immediately offer up my suffering of the desire to receive Him on the tongue silently.
@agapea97552 жыл бұрын
I was convicted a few ago. Minor specs of the Holy Eucharist gets scattered when given in the hand which made me feel guilty about receiving on the hand.
@carmenmct3 жыл бұрын
St Tarcisius was the kid saint who let himself be killed rather than show The Blessed Sacrament he was carrying because he knew they would commit sacrilege. Blessed Imelda was young too but she died of ecstasy after receiving her first communion, she died of love, in perfect union with Christ! ❤️ What about the particles of Christ which are lost when everyone received Our Lord in the hand and are more concerned about their mask than any the mini fragments that contain the totally of Christ?
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
As another person here, A Retrograde said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostlic Tradition. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for NO. One who goes against Trent becomes no better than Luther who went against Trent.
@wendymitchell82453 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767Trent is based on the teaching of men not the word of God . You might as well follow Joseph Smith.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@wendymitchell8245 The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not agree with your divisive comment. The schismatic Martin Luther taught divisive things as well.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@wendymitchell8245 Trent is in agreement with others all the back to 115 AD at the very least. If teachings of men entered in that early, then will you teach us truth?
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@wendymitchell8245 Joseph Smith is in a long line of schismatic heretics like (a) Luther who said the church in his time was wrong. Then others (b) after him said he was wrong. Then otherrs (c) said b were wrong, and all the way down to you. You can't go from Luther until now for the truth. You have to go back to the beginning then down to Trent. And if they in AD 115 were alreadty off the rails, and it's anybody's call how to interoret the scriptures, then you make every person into their own pastor. Good going atomizing the gospel even further.
@coG1393 жыл бұрын
Thanks, to the both of you, for easing my mind about receiving our Lord in my hands during this time of the pandemic. May God richly bless you both!
@angelictapestry92302 жыл бұрын
Yes indeed.Thx for posting this💌
@nanazola671212 сағат бұрын
I had a dream when I was a child I can't forget. The Bishop was a friend of my father and came told him about his upcoming trip to Rome to be part of the 2nd Vatican counsel. That night I had a dream. Two young men dress in white ropes came to my room and told me to follow them. We flew above the houses and landed in the church. A mass was going to start, as we enter the church in a litter was seating a cardinal dress in his priestly ropes. The mass started and when it come to communion, people didn't kneel, but lined up and there were helping to pass out the host. The host were black. One of the young man told me from now on in church there will be black and white host. Never take black host, that hurts our Lord. I looked at the face of the cardenal, he smiled and his face turn in to a devil face. I scream and woke up sweating and trembling.
@VaticanToo6 ай бұрын
Maria Simma, the Catholic Mystic who was visited by holy souls from purgatory for over five decades says she was told by the holy souls that the American bishops would remain in purgatory until the the American church went back to receiving on the tongue. I was a Eucharistic minister in San Francisco and when I initially move to the Houston area, I decided not to pursue becoming a EMHC minister in my local diocese because of the receive in the hand . However, ultimately I felt God was calling me to once again serve. I sensed The Lord was telling me that I was not personally culpable because the Bishops had approved receiving in the hand.
@aprilgabutina69703 жыл бұрын
"bowing of the knees, the answer to the world's problems", I agree with you Fr. Makes a LOT of difference in our personal life, family life and the nation's.
@paultrahan39053 жыл бұрын
Praying is the answer
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
The end of the matter: A.) From King Baldwin: 1.) St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord." 2.) St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. 3.) The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. 4.) This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. 5.) Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received. 6.) The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Council of Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.” 7.) The 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. 8.) St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.) 9.) The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition".
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
B.) Protestant, schismatic modernists are like Luther who denied adherence to all popes in concert with Clcouncils past. 1-9, above, which said no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, say no to hands receving communuion except in times of persecution, etc. All of these cannot be expressed any differently. Truth is truth except for modernist relativists. Sin is sin, per Sacred Scripture, 380 AD, etc. Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful: "But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Pope St. Peter was the first Pope, then others followed until now. If previous popes, councils, etc, can be undone by Francis and/or Vatican II, then what keeps Francis from undoing all popes back to even St. Peter's writings and actions In the scriptures or Vat II from undoing Trent, Nicaea, etc? There is either an increasing or diminishimg of the papacy or there isn't either. If Francis could override all popes before him, say except Pope St. Peter, then the papacy has diminished since Peter giving the supremacy to the Orthodox. If there is no diminishing, then Pope Francis cannot override previous Popes. The same holds true for all councils, going back to Nicaea. There is no diminishing of councils either. Thus everyone must obey all councils from Trent going back to Nicaea. Martin Luther was a heretic and like him, people today deny Trent, the pope associated with Trent, and all the popes associated with 1-9.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 the problem Ray has is this: he makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016 You constantly say along the lines "you don't know anything" yet never prove step by step, with expounded sound, cogent arguments, what you claim you know but don't as many here have cleaned your clock and you run away. You have said again and again to me "your move" so this is a game to you, sadly, so grow up, Sissy on one of these called you out saying you used inappropriate language and Ad Homs. You can't even figure out that Sacred Scripture and Tradition from 30 AD until now are what the councils and popes relied upon that I referenced and when they say only certain people may touch sacred vessels, you can be excommunicated over certain things, etc, etc, it is forever. These popes then who worked with these councils and what they all established over the millenia spoke for God and it is forever. 1-9 all link together. Trent, #9, anchored 1-9 in the New Testament citing "Apostolic Tradition" thus for you to challenge 1-9 is akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul in the NT
@augustuslc3 жыл бұрын
I just do not understand why us Catholics get lost in technicalities; we know that under certain circumstances the church can authorize to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist in the hand. I also rather receive the Eucharist on the mouth, but we are in the middle of a very infectious pandemic and if the church decrees that this is a time to receive it in the hands so be it. Our heavenly father sees what is in our heart (our soul) and as long as you take the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with veneration and understanding God will judge us based on that. We are living in a time when some Catholics are behaving like the pharisees and the sadducees judging others based on the external showing and an overemphasizing stress on rules, remember Matthew 15:18-20: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone”.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
Well said. I receive in the hand all the time, and I bring myself to the Lord with humility and love.
@CatholicBossHogg3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, why stress the small stuff like the body of creator of the universe... look there is a coof that almost no one under 80 dies from that is what is important.
@GratiaPrima_3 жыл бұрын
@@CatholicBossHogg you know that body came as a helpless baby, touched lepers, and finally suffered and died naked with criminals. Jesus is nothing if not humble. I think he can handle your hand.
@CatholicBossHogg3 жыл бұрын
@@GratiaPrima_ and yet what did she say to Mary outside the tomb?
@GratiaPrima_3 жыл бұрын
@@CatholicBossHogg He told her to go tell the disciples...
@alisaluvbrd3 жыл бұрын
Yes please bring this back! I'm a new Catholic and am devastated. We can no longer recieve Communion. Please pray for us!
@diannebartkus98933 жыл бұрын
I loved the communion rails! They were reverant and beautiful!
@evamariebryde3 жыл бұрын
My hands are not consecrated. I cannot and will not desecrate the Eucharist by touching the Sacred Host with unconsecrated hands.
@stephenfredrickson47223 жыл бұрын
Yes, neither are eucharistic ministers hands consecrated.
@stephenfredrickson47223 жыл бұрын
My tongue isn't consecrated either, but kneeling and tongue is a sign of humility and respect.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@stephenfredrickson4722 Why aren't their hands consecrated?
@carlswindelliv27013 жыл бұрын
Stop being scrupulous!!!!!!!! Just receive in the hand it's not nice to stick ur tongue out u might catch covid
@stephenfredrickson47223 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 because they aren't priests!!
@larondeb7823 жыл бұрын
Vatican II brought protestantism into our church. Communion in the hand is a sacrilege to our holy Lord in the Eurcharist. Kneeling before receiving him is a part of that adoration. BRING BACK THE COMMUNION RAILS AND COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE!
@kategualtieri31383 ай бұрын
I totally agree Father. When our leaders lack reverence, the congregation follows. When we knelt at the altar, and received Our Lord on the tongue, it reminded us how precious and reverent it is. It also teaches our young people much more respect for the Mass. Lack of dressing properly, coming late and leaving early, seemed to come about when we started receiving in the hand.
@joannebywaters41542 жыл бұрын
I love you two!!🙏🙏, thank you Fr Mark for sharing so gently❤. I wish it were simple, sometimes it's just not!! Like standing for Jesus!! I always want too, & yes, Be not afraid, yet it's sometimes, kneeling or sitting is called for...humility & discernment & THANKFULLY WE HAVE A MERCIFUL, & ALL KNOWING SAVIOR ❤🙏❤
@janetgrimm46263 жыл бұрын
So when the Church "allows" women priests, we're not supposed to condemn that? Who gives you authority to decide where the line is drawn? I will never receive the Holy Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in my hand because someone said it was ok. Admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant.
@mattmaes3 жыл бұрын
It is right to focus on proper devotion and disposition. Proper reception naturally follows.
@MystoRobot3 жыл бұрын
A few months ago, I took the decision *NOT to receive in the hand* after reflecting about it, and speaking with a very good FSSP priest. I believe it was also Mother Theresa who said _"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion-in-the-hand."_ My decision is not based on pride or desire to be better than others: but I am a poor sinner and penance isn't always easy... so, if I can do something as simple as _not_ disrespecting God's Holy presence in the Eucharist, I'll do it and wait to receive it on the tongue at a nearby traditional mass. I do feel a certain sadness to see most people receive it in the hand, but it isn't my greatest concern. People receiving communion without consideration for their state of grace is worst. I see lines of people going up to the priest for the Eucharist... but barely see anyone going to the confessionals. In Novus-Ordo parishes I frequent, some confessionals are even used as small closets to store chairs & such.
@alhilford23453 жыл бұрын
I agree.
@johnscarpa51163 жыл бұрын
The Tredentine Mass is a more perfect expression of Our Catholic Faith....and we always kneel a d receive on the tongue. Father please help restore our faith.
@reneezettek92303 жыл бұрын
I aswell, Father was raised as you were! Receiving communion In the hand. As a cradle Catholic, I felt it was ok & preferred it. But, when Our Lord Christ, knocked me off my horse, while on my way to Damascus, causing me a serious injury and becoming bedridden & several horrific surgeries...turned out to be the greatest gift & blessing that I've ever received from Christ. I then found my faith by finding EWTN & Mother Angelica 15 yrs ago. I developed a devotion to the Holy Rosary & Our Lady of Fatima. Many tangible MIRACLES started occurring. But, in my soul, I was shown that receiving communion in the hand was offensive. Why??? Because, the people in today's Mass hold hands during the Our Father prayer & then shaking hands with parishioners during the "sign of peace". Making our hands unclean. Then go and allow the most precious & Holy body of Christ on our unclean hands. This is offensive to Our Lord, whom suffered so much for our unworthy souls. Saint Thomas Aquinas was extremely important to me and my family. My beloved father's name sake was Thomas Aquinas. When my father passed away in 2010, and without realizing the actual day of my dad's funeral Mass & burial, literally was on the Feast Day of Thomas Aquinas. Plz allow me to say one more thing...your unjustified comment concerning Catholics receiving communion on the tongue as a rebuke or as you mentioned. Or possibly "out of spite" is ridiculous and unfounded. When folks receive on the tongue, the VERY FEW, I MIGHT ADD, they already realize that they're being watched. It's uncomfortable because some of those watching will scoff at those receiving on the tongue by saying...they're receiving on the tongue to show off their piety or say that they want attention. Both claims being ridiculous and unfair. Father Mark Goring, I commend you for your steadfast resolve to speak the truth.
@emmaleebuzzard10233 жыл бұрын
Growing up I didn’t even know you could receive on the tongue. 😩
@redbeardedalaskaman12373 жыл бұрын
Yes and my family Parish when we were souped on the tongue a lot of people bullied us for it. If you read canon law and other documents of the Catholic Church though receiving on the tongue is the church's preferred method (the norm). Receiving in the hand in the churches eyes it's supposed to be an exception for extreme or unusual circumstances. There's nothing special about receiving something in the hand we do that every day it's a common thing to do. However if we receive the Eucharist on the tongue that will be the only thing we ever receive on the tongue which makes it special. Also the only other time that we kneel before someone is when we are proposing or if we still have kings and queens this is another thing that can bring more specialness. Since Jesus is both bridegroom and King and God kneeling is quite fitting.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
since Vatican II, we have returned to some degree to the most ancient practices - in the early Church, Christians received Eucharist in the hand
@peterleksg3 жыл бұрын
That's why we need traditions and history to remind us of why saints do this and that. Time changes and distant us from God.
@raymack87673 жыл бұрын
@@angelicdoctor8016As another person here, A Retrograde said: St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11). The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition." One Pope (probably more), one council, two synods, one Ecumenical Council, the Council of Trent, and the Apostlic Tradition. You can't override that. Too much, too much tradition, too much precedent, too many centuries, too much for Vat II, overwhelms it and all in its path. Cannot be changed or altered. The Apostolic Tradition versus one Pope (Francis), etc, etc. Game over for the schismatic NO. To go against Trent makes one heretical like Luther.
@angelicdoctor80163 жыл бұрын
@@raymack8767 Ray, Ray, Ray. Let me offer you a ray of hope! Let us all wish confused Ray every grace and blessing. Ray makes no distinction between discipline, doctrine, and dogma -> disciplines change - receiving Eucharist on the hand is pope-approved, and it's not a dogma, so you must accept the goodness of the practice, though you can obviously receive on the tongue. You cannot be a faithful Catholic and opposed to the pope.
@c.Ichthys6 ай бұрын
When Christ instituted the Eucharist, recall that the consecrated Eucharist was broken and passed to each hand of the Apostles (and those gathered for the Last Supper). The early Church did not place the Eucharist on the tongue, it was in the hands. We have their writings. They also appointed other Church members to bring the Eucharist to others. Quote: (St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 348) _“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but _*_placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right,_*_ which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”_ _(Catechesis mystagogica_ V, xxi-xxii, Migne _Patrologia Graeca 33)_
@clivejames50589 ай бұрын
I have two seriously arthritic knees, awaiting a knee replacement for the worst one. No way can I kneel but it does not mean that I'm not deeply reverential when receiving the Eucharist on the hand.
@AndrewSmith-jm1cd3 жыл бұрын
The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand started in Holland during the early 1960s. The unsanctioned practice spread to Belgium, France and Germany. Pope Paul VI directed the bishops to immediately stop the practice. The Bishops continued the practice despite the Pope’s plead to stop. In 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult - an exception to the law (not a right but a permission)- under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” The indult was an attempt to contain the practice of communion in the hand; not to propagate it. So how did Communion in the hand arrive in the United States where the practice was not wide spread? In 1975 and again in 1976, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) attempted in vain to garner two-thirds of the bishops to vote in favor of receiving Communion in the hand. Bernardin conducted a third vote that once more fell short of the two-thirds majority. This, however, did not end the matter. Bernardin decided to (unlawfully) begin gathering “absentee votes” from any bishop he could find - including retired bishops who no longer administered any dioceses. Consequently, the number was adjusted to meet the two-thirds majority. In summary, the practice of communion in the hand was thus born out of disobedience and granted to the United States due to an illegal rigged vote. In 1950, 87% believed in the Real Presence. Today, that number has plummeted to a mere 34%. The abusive and hurried manner in which the practice of Communion in the hand was imposed led to a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist and caused great pain for many in the Church. Every particle of the host, after consecration, has become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Communion in the hand allows loose particles to fall off the host onto the hand and floor. It is desecration of the Eucharist and a sacrilege to allow these unconsumed particles of the host to fall to the floor and be trampled on, left in our pockets, smeared on the steering wheel, run through the washing machine, etc. Knowing that communion on the hand creates significantly higher incident rate of desecration of our Lord means we have a moral obligation to receive in our Lord in the more reverent manner, kneeling and on the tongue. The Congregation for Divine Worship, Vatican, responding to a question about denying communion on the tongue during the H1N1 "swine flu" pandemic: "[The CDW] observes that its Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that 'each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue', nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist."
@alhilford23453 жыл бұрын
Right: I hope everyone reads this!
@anthonyortega54673 жыл бұрын
I thank my God for my priest David Dutra from St.Bernards,Tracy,Ca Father David prefers to give communion by tongue because it is the right way to receive Our Lord Jesus. Receiving it by hand is difficult and has more of a chance of the person dropping it or just walking away with it. He said its sad when someone leaves it behind in a pew.
@cozyhomemakingvibes Жыл бұрын
This is such a helpful conversation. Thank you.
@Roydolli11 ай бұрын
We continued to receive Communion on the tongue during the pandemic and none of us were affected by the Virus!