Jimmy Akin - Laypeople handling consecrated hosts?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- www.catholic.com
Why are laypeople allowed to touch consecrated hosts? Why are laypeole asked to extend their hands over people when the priest confers a special blessing at mass? Jimmy Akin explains.
Jimmy Akin is an internationally known author and speaker. As the senior apologist at Catholic Answers, he has more than twenty years of experiencing defending and explaining the Faith.
Jimmy is a convert to the Faith and has an extensive background in the Bible, theology, the Church Fathers, philosophy, canon law, and liturgy.
Jimmy is a weekly guest on the national radio program Catholic Answers Live, a regular contributor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a popular blogger and podcaster. His personal web site is JimmyAkin.com. - Фільми й анімація
"Out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament, nothing unconsecrated may touch it." - St. Thomas Aquinas
+Hammett175 If you receive knowingly having confessed your sins including your very recent defects than you are most prepared for the receiving of the host in tongue or hand.
I believe you need to research more....
Watch the 20th Century Fox movie called The House of Rothschild from 20th Century Fox from 1934 as well as Occult Forces from 1943 by Robert Muzard
President Andrew Jackson fought against The Jewish Rothschild Bankers after taking over President John Quincy Adam's Anti Mason Party formed in the early 1800s? You can find that through reference books at your local library.The Anti Mason Party was formed after Captain William Morgan was murdered at Lake Ontario after he wrote the book, "Illustrations of Freemasonry."
www.amazon.com/Illustrations-Freemasonry-Capt-William-Morgan/dp/1450572421
President Jackson quote:
"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!"
Source:
From the original minutes of The Philadelphia Committee of Citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels
books.google.com/books?id=zxKUmwEACAAJ&dq=andrew+jackson+stan+v+henkels&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSyaOBjdHaAhWutlkKHXFFBkAQ6AEIKTAA
books.google.com/books?id=ku6VkHQ7R5oC&q=andrew+jackson+den+of+vipers+and+thieves&dq=andrew+jackson+den+of+vipers+and+thieves&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1r6_cjZzaAhXyxlkKHQkYC-g4HhDoAQg0MAI
archive.org/stream/pdfy-2hPsiDlq0aWEACV8/PRESIDENT%20ANDREW%20JACKSON%20VS%20BANKSTERS_djvu.txt
According to The Jewish Encyclopedia published in 1906 on page 490, Mayer Rothschild was an enemy of our Founding Fathers.. Mayer Rothschild was an agent of Prince William Landgrave IX of Hesse Cassel that funded British Troops against The American Revolution.
Page 490 Jewish Encyclopedia Published in 1906. Source:
books.google.com/books?id=OFhLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA490&dq=Mayer+Rothschild+Prince+William+Landgrave+agent+Jewish+Encyclopedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih9ajkj6XWAhVmxVQKHWx8A8kQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Mayer%20Rothschild%20Prince%20William%20Landgrave%20agent%20Jewish%20Encyclopedia&f=false
Furthermore, The BBC came out with a documentary in 2002 on when Israel attacked The U.S.S. Liberty during The 6th Day War in 1967. Source:
ua-cam.com/video/kjOH1XMAwZA/v-deo.html
I believe that The BBC downplayed the event. Al Jazeera Media came out with a documentary titled, "The Day Israel Attacked America" They only recorded U.S. Navy Seal's members who were on board that ship. Those members gather every year to remember the 34 U.S. Sailors that lost their lives that day along with the 200+ that were injured. Source:
ua-cam.com/video/tx72tAWVcoM/v-deo.html
No..just no..i usually agree with yall..but no....i will not receive from a lay person or in my hand....legions of women in sleeveless dresses, sometimes cut above the knee..handing out communion..just no..
Okay, but then, if Jimmy is accurately speaking about the Church's position, you'd be going against the entire Church... And to do that you'd have to assume your decisions hold more weight that the Church that Christ established
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.🙏
I dont know that he's right about that. From what i recall there used to be a prohibition on receiving in the hand up until recently. Personally i believe we should go back to that prohibition as it will restore actual respect for the real presence
Unclenate1000 The prohibition against hand reception, as far as I know never existed, universally, but decided via local dioceses or bishop's councils. Secondly, I think it's been recommended universally to receive on the tongue simply to prevent abuse of the sacrament (dropping of crumbs, theft of the eucharist, etc.) I personally receive on the tongue principally because it prevents any small pieces of the species falling or being left on my hand - after all, if it's sense perceptible, it's Jesus.
I also believe that Mr. Akin is incorrect on this subject. Communion in the hand was done by "Indult" which is a temporary favor granted by the Holy See for bishops to permit them to do something not otherwise allowed. If given for a certain time, it must be renewed by competent ecclesiastical authority(definition from Fr. John Hardon).
With this said the Bishops on May 3-5,1977, had a meeting about Communion in the hand, the Minutes can be found at Notre Dame Archives and purchased for $9 I recommend buying them and do something to stop this Sacrilege.
This was done illicitly meaning "not lawfully." Cardinal then Bishop Bernadine had bishops who weren't legal to vote, vote which change the practice of Communion only on the tongue kneeling void but actually it was INVALIDLY done which makes it null and void according to Cannon Law this subject needs to be revisited just as Evolution and the believe it it needs to be re-visited.
It is because of these ERRORS so many have lost the faith it is not because of Vatican II. Vatican II reforms were done Pastorally not Dogmatically so the last Dogmatic Council was the Council of Trent which is still licit today no matter what many think. It will take REAL MEN (Bishops) who truly love the Church to make this perfectly clear.
The Secret to Defeating the devil
"... the genius of satan is to deceive the human mind in order to seduce the human will. Memorize that logic. satan knows that all the evil in the world begins with ERROR. Let me repeat. satan knows that all the evil in world begins with error. In other words, all sin in
the human heart begins as untruth in the human mind."
~Servant of God Fr. John Hardon
An official of the French Army asked St. Bernadette once whether she feared an invasion of the Prussians. She responded, “I ONLY FEAR BAD CATHOLICS” He responded, “Don’t you fear anything else?” She said-“NO, NOTHING.”
Vatican I was the last dogmatic council, not Trent.
Cyril of Jerusalem lecture on communion
21. Approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists ex- (1 tended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King.
And having hillowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest, is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after having partaken of the Body of Christ, (I approach also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth "ed thine hands, but bending and saying in the way of worship mow and reverence, Amen, be thou hallowed by partaking also of hi, the blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy res. lips, touching it with thine hands, hallow both thine eyes and brow and the other senses. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.
Maybe Jimmy should read a Catechism of the Council of Trent:
To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so August a Sacrament, not only is the power of it's administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to it's completion.
Priests themselves and the rest of the Faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer or receive the Eucharist.
Why only that council?
" we don't need to be overly concerned about this" ...I'm disappointed...that was a very irresponsible statement...dropped the mike on this one
Can anyone take Jimmy seriously at this point?
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Yall need to remember practice can change belief and doctrine cannot
Exactly!!
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
This is the moment Patrick Coffin knew he couldn't work for Catholic Answers anymore
How so?
I remember while I was sick in the hospital as teenager and Pat a Catholic woman who I met while visiting a Catholic Church and i became the first in her group she had been wanting to start for a youth Rosary group. She visited me while I was sick in the hospital and she prayed with me and gave me a little blessing.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Response to some comments:
I'm from the Philippines and soooo many of us here receive the communion on our hands; soooo many also receive it by tongue. We don't make an issue out of it, nor do we act and talk about it like we understand the fullness of its Divine Mystery. In the Gospels, The Pharisees/Sadducees would make issues about Jesus going inside impure houses and interact with impure people. But let's set our eyes on Jesus, He came for the sick.
P.S. If we will be talking about lay people "consecrating the host" then I would disagree on that. I don't think we have the authority to do that. Only the priests can do that. But if it's about receiving Jesus then, "Lord I'm not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." Still, Jesus enters the houses and gets in touch with sinners.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Jimmy Akin, you really let me down on this one! I sense a modernist American Catholic now!
He let me down on this one too
I didn’t expect that answer too
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
it was a mortal sin in canon law for laymen to touch the Eucharist
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
FYI - There are churches/priests that will NOT give Communion on the tongue. Coming from personal experience living in a rural area where the next nearest church is quite a distance and a dangerous drive. And this is not that uncommon in large areas usually in the western US. And there are too few priests today so that we can risk a priest being removed/moved/disciplined for disobedience to his Bishop/Archbishop. If a priest feels he is in the right or his conscience tells him.....
Cyril of Jerusalem lecture on communion
21. Approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists ex- (1 tended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King.
And having hillowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest, is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after having partaken of the Body of Christ, (I approach also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth "ed thine hands, but bending and saying in the way of worship mow and reverence, Amen, be thou hallowed by partaking also of hi, the blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy res. lips, touching it with thine hands, hallow both thine eyes and brow and the other senses. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
This is why I will never take Jimmy Akin seriously.
I served on the altar as a boy. One of my jobs was to hold a plate under the chin of the Communicant, to catch the host should it fall. The priest beat me to it and was in the course of placing the host on to the Communicant's tongue, but dropped it. I bent down to pick it up and WHAM!.. he pushed me out fo the way and I went sprawling. His actions were explained as him stopping me touching the host.
So.. it appears it is NOT a falsity. The rule really did exist, that only the priests hands may touch the host. I think a priest knows better than this man in the film.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
This should have been called: "Jimmy Akin - Vatican II's Greatest Defender"
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
FATHER RIPPERGER JUST A VIDEO ON PREPARING, RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST - I am pretty sure he said lay people should not be handing out the host according to the old rite
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
The video is misnamed. “Handling the consecrated host” clearly implies the people touching it with hands. There is great fittingness for the lay people receiving on the tongue since the priests hands are consecrated and the Eucharist is not ordinary food. Also, we seem to always avoid the issue of particles of the eucharist and the fact that communion on the hand in the mid 20th century was started as an abuse. People need to read Redemptionis Sacramentum and Memoriale Domini. Also, we have a misplaced sense of priorities in the Church today. Jesus is more important than us. Therefore the handling of and respect towards the sacred species is more important than my personally preferred manner of receiving the host. Biggest problem in the eucharistic revival is that nobody is talking about eucharistic discipline.
Still love Catholic Answers Though
No . We should not have a consecrated host on hand
There is no mentioned who we are receiving here...receiving The Lord by hand has become one of the downfall of our faith...
Antiquarianism was condemned by Pius the 12th read the Council of Trent
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
The host is supposed to be the actual body of CHrist through transsubstantiation. Are we not supposed to regard it as God present in front of us? So, why would you touch it with your hands?
It's all about respect and reverence.
Agree, but as a matter of prudence, abuses by the laity in receiving communion would likely be curtailed by imposing the discipline of receiving on the tongue. I myself switch back and forth depending on my health but prefer on the tongue.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
@@martinmartin1363 When I do occasionally receive on the hand, I try to imitate what Cyril of Jerusalem taught catechumens. I do not use my fingers but bring my mouth to my hand in a bow, trying to think of my hands as a throne for Christ the King.
Are anyone's tongues or mouths or throats or stomach's consecrated?
@@tonyl3762
A fourth century passage, often attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs communicants:
Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with fingers apart, but making the left hand a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding 'Amen.' Then, carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any of it, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you did not mislay any of it or sustain any loss?3
The Church incorporated this attitude into Its official liturgical practices. Altar cloths were provided to absorb any spills, and tiny fragments of the Blessed Sacrament could be recovered from the smooth starched corporal on which rested the Host and Chalice by running the thin gold paten methodically over its front surface. The priest was directed to hold his thumb and forefinger together until they could be rinsed in the ablutions which he drank after Holy Communion.
For those who did not receive at the altar, a Communion cloth (alternatively called a "domenical," a "manutergium," a "houseling cloth" or a "communion veil") was employed to catch the Host if dropped by the priest, and in some cases to keep the communicant's bare hand from touching the Host. In some places the early Church permitted men to receive directly in the hand, while requiring women to cover their hand with the Communion cloth. Both sexes drank the Precious Blood through a golden straw called a fistula, administered by the deacon.
For several centuries, beginning about the 12th, when Communion began to be distributed only under the form of bread, and directly on the tongue, the communicants received a drink of unconsecrated wine from a chalice, which they still held with the Communion cloth. At first the Communion cloth was held at the top step of the altar, but, at least for the laity, this gave way to the Communion bench of the 15th century, and the more familiar Communion rail of the 16th century, still covered with the Communion cloth. The Communion cloth remained for the clergy who communicated at the altar step, and is mentioned in several of the monastic ordos.
In modern times the Communion cloth was called for in the Roman Ritual and Missal, although the Catholic Encyclopedia gives the Communion paten as an alternative. Apparently this was considered an abuse, for roughly ten years later the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments issued a decree requiring the cloth, and allowing the additional use of the paten. The paten was to be larger than the paten used at the altar, and unconsecrated. At first it was given to the laity to pass from communicant to communicant, but often came to be carried by the server.
As employed during the 20th century, the cloth was handled by the acolytes for the reception of Communion at the altar, and was extended to full length for use at the altar rail. It obviously was not treated with the same minute attention as the corporal was at the altar, although the priest would have carefully recovered any visible fragments if a Host were dropped on to it. In practice, a Communion cloth was sometimes semi-permanently attached to the sanctuary side of the altar rail, and flipped over it at Communion time. This practice may have led to the exclusive use of the paten, as being less likely to scatter Host fragments.
The Communion cloth is mentioned by rubricists and remained in Ritus servandus (X. 6) of the Roman Missal until the 1960 revision of Pope John XXIII. Curiously, the Rubricæ generales (XX) of the earlier Missals did not mention the cloth among the items prepared for Mass at the credence table. The 1960 Missal removed the Confiteor with its associated prayers as well as the Communion cloth from X. 6, mentioning a Communion paten on the credence in Rubricæ generales 528.
Although, like the Confiteor before Communion, the Communion cloth seems unnecessary since the 1960 revision, it is still seen in some traditional Catholic churches. We have even heard that it is the custom for communicants to place their hands under it, as they did with the houseling cloths of old.
Late in seeing and commenting on this. Since I was trained in the Old Rites, and still use the 1962 Missal Breviary and Missal, I think I'd count as a fuddy duddy old priest who sticks to the pre-Vatican II "traditions" I do accept the New rites, and when health does not allow me to celebrate Mass but I can still fulfill my obligation by assisting at Mass, I will go to the Ordinary Form as I accept it as valid and Licit. I set up these credentials in order to answer some of the issues of people who misunderstand tradition as being locked into the rites just prior to the Council as the only way that the Church has "always done things." There were a few select laypeople who were prior to the Council granted the faculties to invest laypeople in the Brown Scapular and other sacramentals. The circumstances were limited, but it is important to note that even a priest who was not a Carmelite had to have special faculties to invest someone in the Scapular prior to Pope St. John XXIII granting the faculties to all priests in good standing with his bishop.
So too with communion in the hand. Something I'm not permitted to do in the EF, and which when I attend an OF and receive from another priest I do only on the tongue, the focus should be more on that the Most Blessed Sacrament is received with dignity, honor and respect and by those who are free from Mortal Sin, rather than the manner (approved by the Holy See) it is distributed and received.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
I’d love to know if Jimmy still feels the same 7 yrs later? I have been receiving in the hand, I can’t kneel or tilt back my head due to severe arthritis, and I feel so uncoordinated most of the time, I feel I will mess up and close my mouth too early, or pull back my tongue early, or something, and will end up dropping Jesus 😢. I have prayed that Jesus would reveal if I am doing something sinful, but only my conscience tells me I should be receiving on the tongue. Any priest I’ve asked has assured me it’s okay, I believe the church can bind and loose tradition and practices, and I know that most peoples mouths are far dirtier than their hands.. from their words and their hygiene , and we are all a part of the priesthood since the veil was torn. BUT I still want Jesus to know how much I love and respect him, but am still scared it will be a disaster, from the dropping, or even a priest refusing ( I’ve seen done a few times) Part of me wants to hear Jimmy say it’s still okay, but in reality, I wish more than anything, they would bring back the kneelers, and forbid communion on the hand, so the choice would not be mine. 😢
Wow, first time that I have heard that explanation.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Both hand and tongue are capable of good or evil. St. James 3:4-10.
I dont think that refers to the reverence of receiving the body of Christ.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
i absolutely love jimmy's shirt
I can sense Patrick's sarcasm here..." and stomach acid and that" lol
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Wow this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Jimmy did not get Patrick's hahah
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
What a ridiculous, evasive answer by Akin. The question was whether a layperson's HANDS should touch the consecrated host, not whether any PART OF THEIR BODY should touch the host. Of course, the communicant's TONGUE and STOMACH ACID will "touch" the communicant. Lol!
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
@@martinmartin1363 Jimmy's answer is even worse than that. Listen to it CAREFULLY. He says that "it was never the case, EVER, that only a priest's consecrated hands can touch the host. Because the priest would then use his hands to put the host on the tongue of the communicant, and it would be touched by the tongue and roof of the mouth and the esophagus of the communicant."
The question was not whether any BODY PART of a lay person should touch the consecrated host. (Obviously, the communicant''s tongue and mouth come into contact with the host! The question was whether the HANDS of a lay person should touch the consecrated host. His answer is the most evasive answer I have ever seen.
@@tradcath2976
Correct Thanks for the advice 👍 I’ve learned a lot from scripture and tradition on UA-cam with father James mawdsley
Is the right to receive the Eucharist on the tongue preserved in Cannon Law?
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Oh bologna! I can't believe what I'm hearing!
Consecrated hands only! The Host received by a communicant on the tongue is not the same concept as touching The Host.
And back when they did make a "throne" they had a cloth on their hand (purificator) and raised it to their mouths. Still not touching Our Lord with their hands. You are giving bad casual information. You are not fit to be giving advice on these holy matters.
Wow jimmy this is a really bad answer, in the early Church the church laity did receive on the hand but they didn’t pick the Eucharist up with their fingers and you won’t find that anywhere with the Church fathers and so how is it possible to receive on the hand without touching the Eucharist and it was on the housling cloth 2 deacons would extend it from one side of the sanctuary to the other and the laity would place the cupped hands under the housling cloth and receive the Eucharist on the tongue or bow down and pick up the Eucharist on the tongue, because even then they understood every particle of the Eucharist was Jesus, it was phased out and alter rails and the paten and receiving on the tongue became the norm, but the housling cloth was put on the altar rails.
When you receive on the tongue all the Eucharist and particles are ingested and not dropped on the floor, if you receive on the hand the particles of Jesus remains on your hand and wiped on clothes etc, the priests hands are consecrated for a reason and he washes his fingers into the chalice and drinks the remaining particles of Jesus.
Vatican 11 voted against receiving the Eucharist on the tongue but the bishops of Holland and Germany and America defied the pope and the counsel and allowed the laity to receive on the hand and the pope gave an indult for a year because he couldn’t stop them and it has carried on ever since, and so receiving on the tongue is still the norm not the hand.
This has been the downfall of the Catholic Church.
Love the batman shirt
There are not any priests in the N.T.Why do R.Catholics put the teachings of some early church leaders before the clear teaching of our Lord and the Apostles.
Praise God. We have but one priest. Jesus the great high priest from the Priestly order of Melchizedek. The Priests at church are in the role of Christ Impersona Christi. They share in the one Priesthood of Melchizedek. Mass is a sacrifice and you need priest for a sacrifice. Praise God.
The early Church, who learned from the Apostles, would disagree with you. Read the early Church fathers like Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.
The exact same apostolic church since Christ with all the same doctrines and traditions that have never changed in 2000 years...right...
1) Where did it say that the Catholic Church has all the same traditions since Christ?
2) What Catholic DOCTRINES have changed?
Because I can't think of any.