Is it a Sin to Receive the Eucharist in the Hand? w/ Fr. Mark Goring 

nobody cares

The Ordinariate uses the rail

early Church received in the hand with no communion rails, so now what?

@@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.

@@icouch Wow. Openly proud and arrogant much?

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.

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.

@@CharlottePrattWilson I'm so happy that I'm able to do so; to God be the glory!

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..

@@museluvr That is beautiful! If only other Catholics would understand and believe who they are receiving! Thank you for your response! God bless you!🙏🏻❤️

You can simply say TLM instead of TLM Masses

TLM means Traditional Latin Mass

@@mgglorym1571 👌

By the fruits you will recognise them.

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.

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

very smart woman hope is in You beautiful young people

Me too in Ottawa

Outstanding comment!

Me too but now since the pandemic, priests refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue

@@alveodas nothing much the laity can do right

I totally agree with everything you say not least because it pleases me as you speak from the heart

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!

anything is possible under the pretext of Corona.

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.

@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!

your canon lawyer is disobedient to the pope - that's a sin for sure

@@angelicdoctor8016 Does that include heretic popes such as Honorius I and Francis?

That's wonderful. I am so happy for you!

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.

Thank you for sharing your story. ❤️ I will remember it.

I like your story. Tku. I wish to open my mouth when I get to Fr tomorrow

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.

@@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 🙏🏼

Thank you dear sister. You are blessed . Beautiful testimony Lord help us to reverently receive you in.our hearts

@@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.

@@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.

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?

@@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.

@@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.

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.

Our church brought back the rails like 12years ago.

Amen

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.

@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.

The Last are the First in the Kingdom of Heaven

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.

Amen 🙏🏻

And since we are creatures of both soul and body, our body's position should fully reflect our soul's disposition, yes?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

@@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

@@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.

Thank you for that reminder Patrick.

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.

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.

not everyone is able to kneel.

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.

You will find the traditional Church. Go to the traditional Latin Mass, for example, the SSPX.

I'd recommend FSSP or ICKSP as they are in full communion with Rome (unlike SSPX)

Yes!!!!! Agree Kevin!!

We have that Church today. It's the same Church.

@@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.

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! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oZvFH8QrGi0.html 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

Amen! Stand firm in your faith!🙏🌹💖

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!!! 🙏🙏🙏🌹🌹💒💒

@Tricia Perry please come away from your lies about the Sacred Body of Jesus

Turboautist

7:16 exemptions

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 . . ."

He literally said it timidly and like a woman. The entire video is him hedging

@@CatholicBossHogg Why are you here, Protestant Bryan?

@@angelicdoctor8016 big brain take

@@CatholicBossHogg Lumen Gentium 25 - get familiar with it

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.

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@sleppynoggin8808 YES INDEED! Amazing testimony! AMEN 🙏🏻 AMEN 🙏🏻 Happy and Blessed Pentecost Sunday! ❤️❤️❤️❤️🕯🕯🕯🕯❤️❤️❤️❤️

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!

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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.

@@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

@@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.

@@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?

....public virtue signaling is becoming more popular as a form of protest

@@cheechak481 So you know what is in that man's heart?

@@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.

@@cheechak481 So do you think he is virtue signaling?

Receive the blessed euchsrst on the tongue

The eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus. Even without dipping it, it is still the blood.

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.

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.

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!

@@FigaroHey What a load of bull dung.

yeah but here in Mississauga they will not give it on the tongue because of the pandemic!

That’s because he the legitimate Pope.

Me Too!!! ❤️🙏🏻🙌🏻

@@CharlottePrattWilson That's not how papal succession works.

@@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.

And whose picture he doesn't have :)

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.

VIVA!!!

I perfectly agree! Praised be Jesus....

St Bernadette's in Phoenix, which is a newer Church here, was built with Communion rails. Reverent Novus Ordo Mass

@@rutheiermann3476 St Anne in Gilbert just added the rails.

Wendy Jesus just passed the bread and cup to them . They passed it around .John just meant Jesus was God, therefore greater in everyway.

Mary washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried it with her hair! I’m lost for words

The disciples were rebuked for treating to eucharistic like a meal instead of eating in their homes. Were they eating without their hands?

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

@@wendymitchell8245 They are Apostles therefore their hands are consecrated and worthy to receive in the hand

the early Church received in the hand - facts as Vatican liturgical offices have affirmed

the Church was sent the Holy Ghost to Guide Her! then Her Councils...

@@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)

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

@@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."

Yes indeed.Thx for posting this💌

💖🛐⚘Brother Its A Veil That I'm Wearing At,And Not Scarf At All💖🙏⚘Amen💖✝️⚘

Why are veils needed ? I don’t want to belong to a religion that treats women badly

@@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 -

@@timfirst3536 I don’t think Jesus requires head coverings - he wants us there - men want head coverings .

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.

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!

@@Miken3307 wow so true !🙏

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.

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

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.♥️

@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@johnobeid67 I refuse to go in the line where a Eucharist Minister is handing out communion......I just can't do it.

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.

Praying is the answer

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".

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.

@@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

@@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

Fellow Italian, I’m not understanding. What do you believe she answered?

do not listen womans and do not speak with them about important things

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".

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.

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.

@@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.

reverence is a personal attitude not an object.

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.

@@raymack8767Trent is based on the teaching of men not the word of God . You might as well follow Joseph Smith.

@@wendymitchell8245 The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not agree with your divisive comment. The schismatic Martin Luther taught divisive things as well.

@@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?

@@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.

Did you watch the video? Neither of them said that receiving on the hand was a sin.

@@rushthezeppelin well sure, but go through the comments section and you will find many Catholics who are very judgmental on the topic

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

Lol if you think your bishop can give you orders that contradict what Rome teaches, you are a schismatic.

@@shane8037 wait, so are you saying “Rome” doesn’t permit communion in the hand?

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.

@@Snails888 not really because the particles aren't corrupted and their appearance isn't altered. They are just small.

@@jms1595 “if the bread be reduced to fine particles.” He specifically addresses tiny pieces.

@@Snails888 thanks for mentioning this important insight, Alex

@@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.

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 !

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 Tradition."

B.) Ecumenical Councils, 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.” Like books in a bookshelf, the first book would be all of the popes from AD 33/68, until AD 100. The second book to the right of it 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 an increasing of the papacy or there isn't to both. 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 along with Sacred Scripture. 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, previous councils building upon it, before and including Trent, and all Councils before going back to Sacred Scripture.

C.) 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 and all popes in agreement throughout history and against Francis must be obeyed.

@@raymack8767 Confused Ray is spreading false information. 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.

So, are humans completely spiritual beings?

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.

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.

@@sfrance8036 our leadership doesn't care.

@@sissybrooks8588 the premise of my argument is independent of leadership but on our inclinations.

@@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.

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".*

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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 Tradition".*

B.) Protestant schismatic modernistsare like Luther denied adherence to all popes in concert with Councils past. And the protestant, schismatic modernists in the CC carry on his work today. 1-9, above, which say no to unconsecrated hands touching sacred vessels, which 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 that by citing "Apostolic Tradition" anchors them in the New Testament making it all irreversible, forever.

C.) Finally, 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, it was sin. Period. Something can't be sin one year and not sin the next. The Council of Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, thus for people now to make the things said in 1-9 to not be 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 be sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people saying it wasn't. You can't. Given The Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it links it all back to the saints of Sacred Scripture thus making 1-9 irrevocable. Since the Council of Trent, as a capstone to 1-9, cited "Apostolic Tradition", it linked it back to the NT, anchoring it there. Sin is sin. This isn't relativistic. Truth doesn't change. To challenge 1-9, with Trent as a capstone linking it all together back to the New Testament, would be akin to challenging St. Peter and Paul.

@@raymack8767 So here it is, uneducated Ray. The problem is -- the Universal Church, under Francis, rejects Ray's thesis -- end of story, really. Ray is basically a Protestant.

My dad told me he always licks his palm discreetly when he returns to his seat after recieving on the hand.

Thank you!

There is a really easy fix to that, stop buying cheap, poorly made hosts.

the early Church received in the hand - the earliest tradition - don't get stuck in the medieval Church

@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.

@@macncheese0013 Reverence is a subjective expression. One cannot draw an objective universal from a subjective premise.

Bishop Schneider has mentioned that in early church, people did receive on the hand but they had a clean cloth put over the cupped hands and the comunicant then raised the hand to the mouth in order to partake. So the comunicant did not touch the Host directly with his hand or handle it with the fingers. That could be an acceptable option.

Jesus purifies us in this suffering 🙏

@The T Have you looked online to see if other churches in driving distance allow for it? Have you talked to your priest about the subject?

That's a demonic temptation to scrupulousness. I knew an elderly and very devout man whose sense of his own sin, even directly after confession, was so strong that he felt he 'shouldn't' receive communion at Mass. He was going to confession but not communicating afterward or within a day or two feeling unworthy and not taking communion. I told him he was being tempted away from Christ, making himself spiritually weaker by refusing to accept the forgiveness we get in Mass and he was simply getting himself in deeper in this cycle of sin and confession but not accepting God's mercy and the strength of the Eucharist. He needed to go MORE often, not less. Look, who is really, REALLY happy if a person in a state of grace talks himself into never receiving the grace and power of holy Communion? God? Or Satan? Whom are you PLEASING by refusing communion based on your FEELINGS, not on God's teaching that if you eat his body and drink his blood he will abide in you? Satan is giving you these scruples and he is delighted that you keep away from the body of Christ: unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you, says the Lord. Your FEELING about it is a temptation, not the truth.

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.

since Vatican II, we have returned to some degree to the most ancient practices - in the early Church, Christians received Eucharist in the hand

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.

@@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.

@@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.

Right: I hope everyone reads this!

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 Tradition".*

B.) Protestant schismatic modernists are like Luther and deny adherence to all popes in concert with councils past as given in A, 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, 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 popes before and after each council are in agreement and Trent is the capstone that by citing "Apostolic Tradition" anchors them in the New Testament making it irreversible forever.

C.) Finally, the past popes and councils worked together in agreement on 1-9 I listed above, and popes before and after them agreed with them in accordance with the quoted section in B. Once they declared certain actions involved with the Eucharist service to be sin, sacrilege, mortal sin, excommunicable offenses, and so on, it was sin. Period. Something can't be sin one year and not sin the next. The Council of Trent cited Apostolic Tradition as a capstone against heretics like Luther, thus for people now to make the things said in 1-9 to not be sin, mortal sin, etc, (those declared in 1-9 to be sin, mortal sin, etc, to do) 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 be sins aren't sins would be like St. Peter and Paul writing that something was sin and people now saying it isn't and challenging them. Truth isn't relativistic.

The creep that follows me everywhere it seems in 3...2...1...