Dispensations are a way the church amends the disciplines

@@tafazziReadChannelDescriptionDispensations can also be ways clerics imprudently misuse, if not abuse, their legit authority. Toleration is weak amendment at best.

@@tonyl3762 it's a weak amendament period. There's no other way to look at it.

​@@tafazziReadChannelDescription No other way? Really? Even in light of the history of its origin as an act of disobedience? Even in light of the loss of reverence for the Eucharist over the past decades? Even in light of the words of Pope Paul VI (which follow below)? "At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth. Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.... Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant. This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist.... Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species.... When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine. Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows: 1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted? Yes: 597 No: 1,233 Yes, but with reservations: 315 Invalid votes: 20 2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop? Yes: 751 No: 1,215 Invalid votes, 70 3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation? Yes: 835 No: 1,185 Invalid votes: 128 From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of 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. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church. Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See-wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays-lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow." - Pope Paul VI in the 1969 document Memoriale Domini

Correct. This was clarified by Pope John Paul II. Here's the history of touching the host being condemned. Communion in the hand started out of disobedience (primarily in Holland) and Paul VI compromised with those bishops, instead of properly correcting them. From there, it snowballed; however, the Church has condemned communion in the hand from the early centuries on: ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: "Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus..." [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.] POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand. ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution." St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree. POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful. SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the 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, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8) 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-MONTINI (1963-1978). "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Apostolic Epistle "Memoriale Domini") POPE JOHN PAUL II-WOJTYLA (1978-2005). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)." "It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another" (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)."

It's going to worse places than someone's hand. I genuinely don't understand the need to not touch something that's about to be ingested.

When I received Holy Communion in 1964, we received The Host on our tongues.

until a bit after the seventh century the Eucharist was received on the hand(and leavened bread was used) in dont think this is a good argument for reception on the hand today as it neglects the disposition of the modern laity and the meaning the actions have acquired. but claiming that communion on the tongue is from the early church is simply false.

In the early early church the Eucharist was eaten at a table, at the end of a meal. Everyone was passed a piece of the species of bread, and then everyone sipped from the cup.

I would love for the Fathers to do an episode about this. Thank you!!

Same.

Spare the rod...

@@MundusTransit dude, I'm not gonna beat a 1 year old at Mass. I want to, it just looks bad.

Was the bread already Jesus's body at the last supper? (Serious question, I'm not trying to make any point). I realise he said 'this is my body' so I guess it already was. Without thinking about it I had assumed it started after his Passion when his body was no longer in the cave. But I guess it could have been his body at that meal at the same time as he was still living in his human body normally

Potato chips and popcorn are also ingested. Should we use the same motions for the Eucharist that we use for potato chips and popcorn? I receive on the hand when I wish to avoid the awkwardness of some short lady trying to place the Host on my tongue above her eye level (or if I have been sick recently). But I do not finger/manipulate my Lord; I follow the tradition of Cyril of Jersusalem and bow my head to my hand to receive, thinking of my hands as His throne. I also bow to the Precious Blood if I am not receiving Him, not just walk by (others are starting to do the same).

Jesus hand out the Host to his Bishops not the Layity

Do you not know that you are a temple of the Holy Spirit!

Graham. The Church developed this practice over time. It is most fitting to kneel and receive from the Priest.

Can I let my heart with my mind to accept it?

I’ve got all that my NO parish. It’s ok to go to the Novus Ordo, folks! Both are beautiful and acceptable. 😊

@jessmddn +JMJ. Count yourself as blessed. Most NO parishes do not have daily confessions and Rosary. A fundamental problem with the NO is that it all depends upon the personality of the priest. You need to pray that your next pastor won't eliminate these practices or marginalize the Faithful. While dioceses continue to close shrinking NO parishes, TLM parishes are booming and vibrant. Dominus vobiscum.

@@brianbacon5149 The Lord won’t abandon his Church, no matter the expression. ✊🏻🤍

@@jessmddn +JMJ. Amen.

⁠@@jessmddnunderstood, but the Traditional Catholic Mass is like a comparison between Palace and a beautiful house. There is a difference in the culture of the families and how the Mass flows and is lived in the families. Not saying it doesn’t happen in newer Mass parishes, but the number that live that way is much higher in TCM. Also, homilies aren’t just 10-15 mins. They can go from 20-30+ mins. They are generally more theological, Truth spoken, there isn’t necessarily a certain time it ends, meaning it usually ends 1 1/2, or on occasion 5-15,20 longer depending on the homily. Most TCP don’t hold back on their homilies and talk about sin, like abortion, infidelity, gossip, slander, etc. the saints, Thomas Aquinas, etc.,Ten Commandments, etc.

No we don’t.

@@johnbrion4565 modernist novus order churches and seminaries are empty. Tradional are bursting at the seams with vocations and large young families. I think the answer is clear. TRADITION IS THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH! Deo Gratias!

@@MacheteMambi my parish is packed every single mass. Even weekday. Who do you think you are to tell others how they should worship especially when Novus ordo is a valid liturgy according to the church.

@@johnbrion4565 I'm not talking about your parish. I'm talking about the church globally. The novus order is in complete collapse. Seminaries are empty. Churches closing. And who am I? A Roman Catholic. Baptized and Confirmed. You can't hide the truth. As laity we are called to spread the truth not hide it for politics of the left. The entire country of Ireland produced 1 seminarian last year. Traditional Orders. Hundreds. Deo Gratias!

@johnbrion4565 Orthodox liturgies are valid but schismatic. The Paul 6 novus order is indeed valid if the words of consecration are properly said by a duly ordained priest, however, apart from the many irreverent novus order masses, many scholars suspect it is schismatic and illicit as it clearly violates a Papal mandate issued by Pope Pius V in QUO PRIMUM. Read it for yourself. It's in the Vatican website. The Only canonized liturgy is the Tridentine Latin Mass. DEO GRATIAS!

Do potato chips deserve the same reverence that God does? I know you don't think so 😂. It is good that you bow before recieving Him, we all should because the present liturgy requires to do so unless you are recieving Him on your kness, which was the only form allowed some time ago (if I get it right). The practice of communion on the hand, although now permitted by the church, there are reasons to think that God does not like it so much. For example, the fact that this practice makes it much easier for sacrilegious people to steal the host. This apparent contradiction between law and God's thought is possible and has happened other times in history. For example, in the Old Testament divorce was not completely forbidden, but as Jesus said, "It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning" (Matthew 19:8) Maybe the same applyes to this other question: it is allowed because we are now so hard-hearted. I like to think that the same spirit of reverence that inspires you to bow before recieving the Eucharist is the same spirit that inspired the Church to teach the communion on the tongue and on our knees. Right now, it is not in the law to do so, but you still can.

The Apostles walked with Jesus. Jesus saw in their futures (except Judas) and deemed them worthy to handle His Body. Well we lay and sinful people do not have the same privilege. What’s the problem with kneeling and opening your mouth receiving Jesus like a baby receiving food from the mother? Didn’t He say the kingdom of Heaven belongs to the child-like ?

Inquiring on how to receive the eucharist in a way that aligns with our beliefs in the real presence and best expresses the reverence owed to the sacrament is not the same as scrupulosity. Additionally, while the Apostles likely received the Eucharist on the hand at the Last Supper, I think it's misleading to use that to justify communion on the hand now. For one, the institution of Eucharist coincided with the institution of the sacred priesthood, with the Apostles becoming the first priests/bishops of the new covenant. The Church has always held that priests are the ordinary minister of communion as they have been empowered/prepared to do so. This can be seen in the rite of ordination where the hands of the priests are consecrated with chrism. The information provided in this video is fully in line with Church history and practice. While the early Church largely practiced communion on the hand, this practiced was eventually changed due to concern of the possibility of desecration and of the Church's deepening understanding of what it meant to receive the Eucharist reverently. Receiving on the tongue has been the preferred way of receiving communion for the majority of the Church's history, and remains the norm, even though the practice in many countries has receiving on the hand as the majority.

Hearing about the Eucharist and judging the priest ?

Shameful comment to leave.

Protestants are just eating bread, not the Body and Blood of Christ. Sometimes they just have crackers and grape juice. I’m not fanatic about receiving in the hand or on the tongue, but I draw the line at “taking a piece from a basket.” I’m really tired of hearing these arguments. I think Jesus is too.

Well there are Protestant churches that don’t even believe in the real presence. Also at the last supper Jesus performed priestly actions. So there must be a valid priesthood to carry out the sacrifice. Just as the Jews had the levites, the priestly tribe, to perform certain functions in Judaism. John Bergsma and Scott Hahn have many great videos explaining all this if you want to learn more.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

@@CoreyJason Oh, like selling indulgences and the Inquisition? Both were catholic. Both were un Christ like...especailly the Inquisition.

@@johnbrion4565 Only Jesus could change bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. NO man can do that, if he did he would be an equal to Christ, and therefore divine, despite any catholic propaganda or explanations to the contrary. The idea actually mocks the divinity and essence of Christ, and some Protestants actually believe it to be blasphemous. It IS a memorial.....as per the command "Do this in memory of me" This is why Protestants call transubstantiation Hocus Pocus, a corruption of the Latin words used by priests in so called "consecration"

Phil. Try reading even one orthodox Catholic book on any topic. You will begin to understand that Jesus established One Church for all eternity. Attend the Latin Mass.

Hi. Thanks for visiting. I have a serious question: how do you understand the suffering in your life in light of the Gospel?

What denomination do you belong to?